On the map we have the Roman Empire as it was partially restored at the death of Justinian I. The capital, of course, is Constantinople, with the recovered western areas ruled from Ravenna (Italy, the Exarchate of Ravenna) and Carthage (Africa and Spain, the Exarchate of Carthage). The One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, Una Sancta Romana Catholica et Apostolica Ecclesia, is governed through the Emperor and the Patriarchs, namely the Patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, in that order of precedence. The role of the Emperor in governing the Church is now called "caesaro-papism," i.e. an Emperor acting like a Pope. However, the Emperor had exercised his powers since Constantine I, while the familiar powers of the Pope were much later claims and inventions. It is thus much less anarchonistic to characterize the claims of later Popes, not the Emperors, as the "caesaro-papism," i.e. the Pope trying to act like an Emperor. Chief among the powers of the Emperor -- the "Equal to the Apostles," , isapóstolos, always portrayed with a halo, -- was that of calling Church Councils, as Constantine had called the Council of Nicaea in 325. Indeed, he had already called a Council at Arles in 314 to deal with the Donatist controversy in North Africa, a production carried out, apparently, without any reference to the Bishop of Rome. The first Council called by a Pope, and regarded by him as Ecumenical, was the Lateran Council I in 1123. To resolve the Great Schism, the Council of Constance, 1414-1418, was called by the Emperor Sigismund; but once a single line of Popes was secure in Rome again, they denied that the Emperor had any authority to call Councils. The last Emperor in any position, and with any need, to call a Council, Charles V, deferred to the Pope -- who then was the one to call the Council of Trent, 1545-1563. At the time of Justinian, the Pope was regarded as primus inter pares, first among equals of the Patriarchs, but that was all. The Patriarch of Constantinople was made second in rank, although this was a bit resented by the other, older Patriarchates. The Papacy, of course, claims that its full authority and its position as the head of whole Church existed from the beginning.

The diagram at right gives some impression of how the One Catholic Church has broken up -- setting aside the Protestant fragmention of the See of Rome in the West, which of course would require a complex diagram in its own right. The convention of calling the Latin Church "Catholic" and the Eastern Churches "Orthodox" obscures the circumstance that katholikê, , "universal," signifies the Church of the Roman Empire, whose Patriarch in Constantinople the Bishop of Rome (through his representative) excommunicated in 1054 AD (although the Pope had just died and the representative no longer had any authority). The Greek Church therefore still uses katholikê, while the Churches that fell out over one of the Ecumenical Councils, especially the Nestorians and Monophysites, would be heterodox, not "Orthodox," to both the Latin and Greek branches of the Catholica Ecclesia. While the Coptic and Syrian Churches broke away over the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon, there remained a continuous line of Greek Patriarchs in Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, even as the Patriarch of Constantinople proselytized Bulgaria, Russia, and other states in the Balkans. Beginning with the Crusades, the Church of Rome sought converts over the same territory; and so we see Latin/Catholic churches and counter-churches swarming around the older, Orthodox ones. The counter-churches double up with the existing Orthodox churches, but sometimes a Catholic church exists, e.g. in the Ukraine or Ruthenia, where a separate Orthodox one doesn't. The Popes claim doctrinal authority, while the doctrine of Constantinople is based on the Church Councils.

A different sort of confusion involving the Roman Empire comes from a more scholarly source, the classic study of Delphi by Peter Hoyle [Cassell, London, 1967].

Religion in the Greek world was tolerant, there was no religious persecution... it was through the Romans, the strong and well-organized, the cruel and authoritative power, that Christianity developed and became a state religion. The terrors and massacres, the inquisitions, the persecutions of Christian by Christian, might never have come about if Greece and not Rome had prevailed. [p.7]

Hoyle has apparently forgotten that Socrates was put to death for "not believing in the gods in whom the city believes, but in other new spiritual [things]." That looks like some kind of religious persecution, on behalf of the state religion of Athens. Furthermore, the practice of Roman religion as generally tolerant was little different from that of Greece. With some exceptions, Christians were not asked to renounce their faith or to desecrate its images, as Christians were in Japan; they were simply asked to honor the traditional gods as well and to demonstrate this by pouring a small libation to them. The subsequent intolerant exclusivism we see, when pagan practice and belief were suppressed, came from the Christians, not from previous Roman traditions. And where then did this Christian exclusivism come from? Clearly from Judaism -- Thou shalt have no other gods before me [Exodus 20:3] -- but I doubt that Hoyle would have wanted to put in print that the "terrors and massacres" were ultimately due to Judaism. I do not want to place all the blame there either, for something that is the most characteristic of Christianity may in fact derive from the Greeks rather than the Jews. We find Sophocles saying:

Thrice blessed are those among men who, having seen these rites, go down to Hades; for only to them is there life; to the others there will be all evils.

Sophocles is talking about the Eleusinian Mysteries, which promised rebirth and eternal life to those who were initiated and denied it to those who were not. There is nothing in Judaism like that.

In the modern polemic against Christianity, Nietzsche was willing to blame Judaism for the evils of Christianity (the "slave revolt" in morals), but then this is little noted in the popular apologetic for Nietzsche's anti-Semitism. Nietzsche was also willing to blame Socrates (that victim of religious persecution) and Plato for corrupting the Greek spirit and making it vulnerable to Judaism and Christianity. Perhaps Hoyle, consciously or not, tries to avoid this mess by simply placing the blame on the Romans -- the opposite of Nietzsche, who said that the Romans were the most noble people who had ever lived, and that "Rome viewed Israel as a monstrosity; the Romans regarded the Jews as convicted of hatred against the whole of mankind" [The Birth of Tragedy and The Genealogy of Morals, translated by Francis Golffing, Doubleday Anchor Books, 1956, p.185-186]. Yet the characteristic attitude of traditional Christianity, that we are saved and you are going to Hell -- Extra Ecclesiam, nemo salvatur (Outside the Church, no one is saved): that looks like something from Hoyle's "tolerant" Greeks.

The Patriarchates, as illustrated at right, consist, as we have seen, originally of the five indigenous to the Roman Empire and, from an early date, that of Armenia and of the East. Schisms multiplied the number of claimants to each Seat, initially between the Roman Church (i.e. the Melkite, "Royal" -- here what I call "Ecumenical," after the title of the Patriarch of Constantinople) and the Monophysites but later between the Latin and the Greek Churches, with the former claiming, and conventionally conceded, the appellation "Roman Catholic." However, this leaves the "Orthodox" Churches as, conventionally, everything else that we see. All of Christendom, indeed, could be divided between Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Churches, with the Protestants missing from the diagram because there are no Protestant claimants to a Patriarchate at the traditional Seats or any Protestant institution of new Patriarchate. For instance, the Primate of England is still the Archbishop of Canterbury, just as when the country was Catholic. Meanwhile, however, we get other Orthodox Patriarchates, as of Russia, and most recently of Ethiopia. The tendency of the Orthdox Churches to become Patriarchates is that, even when in doctrinal communion with an older Church (as at Constantinople), they are characteristically autocephalous, i.e. self-governing.

In this period there were five significant centers of Christianity outside what had ever been in the Roman Empire: in the Caucasus, in Mesopotamia, in India, in Ethiopia, and in Ireland. In the Caucasus were the Churches of Georgia and Armenia. Georgia was doctrinally in union with Romania, but Armenia had not accepted the decision of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. The Patriarchate of Armenia was thus regarded by the Roman Church as heterodox. Similarly heterodox was the Patriarchate of the East, seated at the Sassanid capital of Ctesiphon, which had not accepted the decision of the Third Ecumenical Council -- and thus is often called the "Nestorian" Church, after the doctrine condemned by the Third Council. The authority of the Patriarch of the East already extended to Christians in India, and subsequently would reach all the way to China.

Ethiopia was under the authority of the Patriarch of Alexandria and so, until the Fourth Ecumenical Council, was doctrinally in union with Rome -- later it would continue to follow the lead of the Coptic Church, and now has had its own autonomous Patriarchate just since 1959. That leaves Ireland, which traditionally was converted by St. Patrick after 432 AD. As communication between Ireland and the Empire became more tenuous, the Irish Church preserved literacy, as Britain itself fell out of history, and developed some of its own traditions -- though these never came to serious heterodoxy and any differences were subsequently straightened out. As Irish nationalism later became identified with the Catholic Church, over and against the Protestant Church of England and British rule in Ireland, Ireland became one of the most staunchly Catholic states in Europe -- and today, with Poland, provides a disproportionate number of priests to the Catholic Church. However, Catholic observance in both Ireland and Poland recently has declined.

This is why, for example, St. Augustine's battle against the Donatist heresy was so important: if the validity of the sacraments depended on the moral qualities of priests, or the perfection of the Church on the perfection of the faithful (as the Pelagians thought), the identity of the Church body would soon have been destroyed. The Church's substance, the corpus mysticum, cannot be damaged or polluted by human sins or offenses.

first Pope from the Americas; first new name since Lando in 913; first Pope born outside Europe since Gregory III (Syrian born) in 731; attacks capitalism, protects pedophiles

The Papacy is one of the oldest institutions in the world, perhaps even the oldest. There are likely to be few neutral opinions about it. To Roman Catholics, the Pope may be the holiest man on earth, the heir and keeper of the deepest truths of religion. To others, the Papacy may only stand for ignorance and dogma, intolerance, torture, arrogance, and bigotry. Purely historical judgments, which cannot take into account religious truth or falsehood, may nevertheless leave a negative impression because of the factual nature of things like torture and intolerance. One would like, therefore, as a historian (or philosopher) to ask, "What good was the Papacy?"

There is one very good answer in that respect: By claiming independent authority and resisting secular power, the Papacy paved the way for the later conception of the separation of Church and State. Not that the Church ever wanted to give up its authority over the conscience and morals of citizens, but it accustomed people to the idea that secular power was not the last word and that obedience to the same was not an unconditioned duty. Once the Church was divided by the Reformation, and Protestants found even their own sects multiplying, the easiest solution was, not only to keep secular authority separate, but to deny to churches any coercive function. Thus, while Catholic countries often still mix some religious authority into secular law, the separation of religion from the state, or the principle of liberty of conscience, is a far, far less secure proposition out of the Western world. When China prohibits an inoffensive religious sect, and various countries debate whether to institute Islâmic Law (or apply it in all its rigor), the long struggles between Popes and Emperors, or Popes and Kings, look positively remarkable.

As with many people who look good out of power, for their resistance, but then prove as bad, or worse, as their tormentors once they are in power themselves, our appreciation of the Papacy has its limits. The Popes always looked better resisting than ruling. This has peristed into recent times, when the Church was the focus of undeniable opposition to communism in Poland, but then, again, sought to introduce Catholic moral teachings into the law of post-communist Poland. The irony of this dynamic is palpable when communism itself came to power in the name of the workers but then often slaughtered workers to stay in power.

Thus, one might well say, "OK, it was a worthy role to distinguish and limit the power of secular governments, but since then the Church has been more famous for its intolerance, for the Inquisition, for its authoritarianism. What has it done for us, outside of the Warsaw Pact, lately?" Indeed, if a Mediaeval or Cold War historical role is the best we can do, then perhaps the demise of the Church is long overdue. At the same time, the Church is no longer running any Inquisitions, and priests and nuns have often become activists in trendy political causes -- unfortunately sometimes poisonous leftist causes, as in "Liberation Theology." However, that kind of thing may be of less value than the continued conservative moral teaching of the Church. If the Catholic Church is not going to stand for conservative morality, who is? The principle lesson of traditional morality is self-control. If the Church argues that abortion and birth control are not necessary (apart from its moral objections) for economic success, this is actually true and an argument that should be made. Those who are so imprudent as to find themselves with illegitimate children, even if their fortunes can be retrieved by abortions, may not be prudent in any other areas of life either, to a great loss of fortune which cannot so easily be remedied. The proposition that people should be protected, usually by the government, from any adverse consequences of their own actions is the most destructive moral principle of the modern age, when relativism and nihilism have become the self-evident truths of the intelligentsia. Although the Church may err in the direction of moralism, this is no worse, and probably overall better, than the opposite popular trivializations of morality and prudence. The legendary, fortress-like chastity of Catholic girls, although often ridiculed as unhealthy inhibition, now, especially in the environment of herpes and AIDS, proves to have been the wisest of practical virtues.

On the other hand, the moral standing of the Church now stands gravely challenged by scandals over priests who take advantage of their positions to sexually prey on children. In the most scurrilous of anti-Catholic rumor and libel, Catholics were required to provide children to priests for sexual purposes. However innocent of this, the Church put itself in a very false, immoral, and illegal position by often simply transfering priests accused of sexual crimes instead of turning them over to the police. Why the Church would be reluctant to respond appropriately is understandable, since it has been harder and harder, especially outside of Ireland and Poland, to get men to commit to a life of celibacy to become priests. The Church invests a great deal in the education and training of priests and is going to be reluctant to lose them. There is actually nothing new about this. The wish of King Henry II to be rid of Thomas à Becket was not because Becket was protecting the peasants from the oppression of the King, but because he was protecting Churchmen who were rapists and murderers from the King's Justice. Someone might consider staging a version of T.S. Eliot's Murder in the Cathedral in which the complaint against Becket (or perhaps Archbishop Roger Mahony of Los Angeles) was his protection of child molesters. Henry II could use some good press in this, since he hasn't gotten any since the 12th century.

It can be a problem that the priesthood might tend to attract men who might otherwise be uninterested in marriage, i.e. homosexuals and those sexually attracted to children. In principle, homosexuals are going to be in no worse position than heterosexual priests in that the Church has no objection to anyone being a homosexual, as long as they don't engage in homosexual sex. Since priests are expected to avoid any kind of sex, homosexual priests face temptations in much the same way as heterosexual priests. A priest tempted into homosexual sex may be committing a greater sin than a heterosexual priest, but at least it is not illegal. Child molesting is something else. While homosexual priests as such may not be the problem, conservatives sometimes think it is, since much of the abuse really isn't of children, but of teenage boys. Either way, however, these particular priests don't seem to be able to observe either their vows of celibacy, the Church's teachings on sexuality, or the laws about the age of consent.

A reasonable solution to all this, since the fundamental problem is the scarcity of parish priests, could be married priests. While priestly celibacy is founded on the text, Matthew 19:12, "and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it," it may be that the particular emphasis on celibacy in the Latin Church developed mainly to prevent priestly offices from becoming hereditary -- a grave danger in the Middle Ages, as seen recently also in Japan, where a married Buddhist clergy has resulted precisely in hereditary succession to Buddhist temples. This not likely to become a danger in the modern Catholic Church, however, and the Church would do well to adopt a somewhat more relaxed policy, as in the Greek Orthodox Church, where married priests are simply disqualified from advancing in the hierarchy. On the other hand, the horror or contempt of modern Protestants and secularists for celibacy in general is a bias that is inconsistent both with the history of Christianity, where celibacy is respected or required in all the Orthodox Churches, and in relation to the practice of religion in, say, India, where there is provision and an esteemed place for celibacy in all the autochthonous religions, Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism. After all, the great power of the noble hero Bhishma, , of the Mahâbhârata, who could not be killed against his wish, and his name, derives from the "frightful" oath of celibacy he took. Western enthusiasts for Buddhism as a system of philosophy tend to be oblivious of the place of the Sangha, the monastic community, in the doctrine and history of Buddhism.

Anti-Popes are shown in brackets. Alternative numbers or numbers that do not count in the following sequence are in parentheses. Several Anti-Popes (e.g. Alexander V) actually figure in the count of legitimate Popes. Popes and Anti-Popes in the Great Schism at Avignon are shown with backgrounds in purple. Anti-Popes at Pisa are on a background in green. Sedê Vacantê is "with the Seat Vacant."

The Popes may be viewed in frames in conjunction with the Emperors of the Roman-Romanian-Byzantine lines and Popes of the Frankish-German-French-Austrian lines, using this link. In a screen 640 pixels wide, the formatting suffers considerable distortions. In a wider screen, the window should be enlarged or maximized. To exit the frames, links from this "Popes" window must be used. This device of running Popes and Emperors in parallel goes back to The Holy Roman Empire of James Bryce [1904, Schocken Books, 1961, 1964]. Because the Popes played a larger role in the story of the Emperors in Francia, Bryce ceased listing the Roman Emperors once Charlemagne had been crowned. Also, this shift probably also expresses the lack of regard of historians like Bryce for "Byzantium" and its heritage. See the "Note on 'Romania'."

The mythic beginning of the Papacy with St. Peter may not be quite as mythic as Protestants like to suppose. St. Peter's Basilica at the Vatican is built over a 1st century Christian cemetery. Rebuilt over time, ever since the first version built by Constantine, the altar turns out always to have been over a particular grave, with its own humble monument, of a man whose bones date from the correct era. This may or may not really be Peter, but the antiquity of bones and tomb rule out the kind of crude mediaeval fraud that the sceptic might suppose.

Since St. Peter's and the Papacy really are so old, the opposite temptation, from the one of priestly fictions, is that the Popes know far more about history than anyone suspects. One favorite notion, which may or may not have originated in the novel Another Roadside Attraction by Tom Robbins, is that the Vatican possesses the actual body of Jesus Christ. Since Christ is supposed to have risen from the dead and ascended to heaven, his body would be, to say the least, an embarrassment. But when one wonders whether these few bones are actually St. Peter, the intact mummy of Jesus seems rather less credible. Another conceit, apparently taken seriously by the 1999 movie Stigmata, is that the Vatican possesses texts of the Gospels, even in Aramaic (surviving Gospels are in Greek), which contradict various points of Catholic doctrine, like the existence of the Church. Stigmata, however, very much, perhaps inadvertently, overstates its case, since the sayings of Jesus it treasures as directed against the (not yet existing) Catholic Church could, at the time, have had no possible object other than the Temple of Herod in Jerusalem. The viewer of the movie, taking into account the historical context in which Jesus spoke, might therefore take it as an anti-Semitic rather than just an anti-Catholic screed.

The antiquity of the Papacy is perhaps often forgotten when it comes to the monuments of Rome. The mediaeval Popes did not live in the Vatican, but in the Lateran Palace, which had been seized from its private owners by, of all people, the Emperor Nero. Constantine then donated it to the Bishop of Rome and built adjacent to it the church of St. John Lateran, which has remained ever since the actual episcopal church, the cathedral, of Rome (not St. Peter's). Most of the mediaeval Church councils in Rome are thus "Lateran" Councils, held at the Pope's residence (as the last two Councils have been "Vatican" Councils). Later, while the Popes were in Avignon, the Palace burned twice, in 1307 and 1361. Although the Palace was rebuilt, when the Popes returned, they never lived there again, settling at Santa Maria in Trastevere, then at Santa Maria Maggiore (also ancient; built in 432), and finally, as we all know, at the Vatican. However, Gregory XIII began to build the Quirinal Palace as a summer residence, regarding the higher ground of the Quirinal Hill as healthier in the hot season. Soon afterwards, under Clement VIII, and before the present building was finished, this became the principal residence of the Popes. It continued as such until 1870, and has since then been the official (if not the actual) residence of both the Kings and the Presidents of Italy. The Popes retreated back to the Vatican and the Vatican Palace. What was left of the ancient Lateran Palace was removed by Sixtus V, who then built the smaller existing building.

Although the Pope had been the de facto governor of Rome for a few years, the Donation of Pepin in 754 begins the formal history of the Papacy as a territorial power. This would last until 1870, giving the Papal States a run of 1116 years. The original terms of the grant were for the "Exarchate of Ravenna," i.e. the Roman Imperial territory that was preserved across central Italy after the invasion of Lombards in 568. The most important parts of this were, of course, Rome itself and the area of Romagna around Ravenna in the north, with a narrow salient connecting them. While the Donation was made on paper in 754, Pepin was not able to deliver practical control of the territory to the Pope until 756, which thus is taken by many as the effective beginning of the Papal States.

The ability of the Popes to control the outlying territories, or even Rome itself, was, however, very uneven. Rome was often under the control of turbulent local aristocrats, and one reason for the Papal relocation to Avignon was to escape them. After the return of the Popes to Rome, it was some time before the territorial fortunes could be restored. The son of Alexander VI, Cesare Borgia, then conquered Romagna. This was for his own benefit; but the deaths of him and his (reputed) father (who was perhaps trying to poison someone else) and the accession of the warrior Pope Julius II resulted in its being secured for the Papacy. Avignon was still a Papal possession, and there were some outlying holdings in Italy, like Benevento. This arrangement was then fairly stable until the French Revolution, when Avignon was lost, the Papal States temporarily annexed, and the Pope himself eventually imprisoned by Napoleon. The restorations of 1815 returned the Papal Italian territories, until the period of the unification of Italy, 1859-1870. This formally ended the political independence of the Papacy until the Concordat with Mussolini in 1929 recognized the sovereignty of the Vatican City.

The Donation of Pepin and the subsequent crowning of Charlemagne as Roman Emperor gave the Popes ideas. A document was manufactured, the "Donation of Constantine," whereby secular authority over the entire Western Roman Empire had been given to the Pope by Constantine the Great. This became the basis of Mediaeval Papal claims of authority over all secular rulers in Francia. Papal claims were occasionally enforced with some success, against the Emperors and even against the Kings of France and England; but they came to a bad end when Boniface VIII had to face the ruthlessness of King Philip IV of France. The subsequent Babylonian Captivity and Great Schism, not to mention the Reformation and the exposure of the Donation of Constantine as a forgery, put the Papacy at such disadvantages that it never again had as much leverage as before over secular rulers.

The Frankish Kingdom as the Roman Empire petered out (as it were) after a while, and the Pope granted the Imperial Crown for a few years to local Kings of Italy. This also lapsed. The institution got revived, for the rest of the Middle Ages, when the successful German King Otto I descended on Italy. This began a long struggle between the German Emperors and the Popes for control of Italy and control of the Church in Germany. The successes of the Popes crippled the authority of the German Throne, and ensured that Germany and Italy would enter the Modern period fragmented and anarchic. The political consequences even in the 20th century were severe, as the political immaturity of Germany and Italy rendered them vulnerable to ideologies like Fascism and Nazism. Italy remained tempted by Communism until its fall in 1989/91. The war and mass murder effected by the former temptations echo in the terrorism practiced by the die-hard believers of the latter, even after the Fall of Communism.

Although the Church of the Pope is called by one and all the "Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church" (Sancta Romana Catholica et Apostolica Ecclesia), and this is contrasted, not just with Protestant churches, but with the Orthodox Churches of the East, Greek, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Bulgarian, Russian, Romanian, Serbian, etc., this has been no more than a very clever usurpation. The "Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church" was the Universal (katholikos) Church of the Roman Empire. The Pope was not the ruler of that Church, but one of the Ecumenical Patriarchs, along with the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople. The Pope was allowed to be primus inter pares, "first among equals," but that was it. Governance of the Church was also shared with the Emperor, the "Equal of the Apostles," who had the authority to call Church Councils; and, after 476, that meant only the Emperor in Constantinople -- although, as it happened, only that Emperor had ever called Councils. After various disputes, the Latin and Greek Churches finally broke in 1054. Each thus claimed to be the proper "Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church," but over time the Papal use of the terminology seems curiously to have been conceded by the East. "Eastern Orthodox" is not particularly insulting, but it is a surrender. Even the expression "Greek Catholic" is used for the Roman Catholic counter-church that was created to lure the Greek Orthodox into allegiance to Rome.

The Schism between Greek and Latin Churches came at a very bad time for the Greeks. Defeat by the Turks and the loss of Asia Minor deprived Romania of more than half its territory. This was a catastrophe, and actually the Empire never recovered. The Emperor Alexius Comnenus appealed to the West for help. He had no idea what this would set off. Pope Urban II got the idea to call for a "Crusade," a great Christian army, not just to help the Greeks, but to go on and reconquer Jerusalem. This is what happened. The First Crusade defeated the Turks badly enough that Romania was able to recover considerable territory, but then it went on and obtained the great goal of Jerusalem, which had been in Islâmic hands for 463 years.

Later Crusades were the result of setbacks, like the fall of Edessa in 1144 and, much worse, the loss of Jerusalem in 1187. The Popes began to labor constantly to put together forces that could recover the Christian position in Outremer. The Third Crusade was the most powerful and direct, led by the heroic Richard the Lionheart of England, but it fell short. Much, much worse was the Fourth Crusade, which was redirected by the Doge of Venice, Enrico Dandolo, to the purposes of Venice. Pope Innocent III first had to excommunicate everyone for the use of the army in Dalmatia, and then the Venetians took it, not to Palestine, but to Constantinople. This could be seen as undoing the Schism between the Chruches, since now there was a Latin Emperor and Latin Patriarch in Romania, but it didn't accomplish the real purpose. Nor did it last long. Innocent also sanctioned the appalling Albigensian Crusade which precipitated massacre and cultural devastation in the South of France. Nevertheless, he also accepted the legitimancy of the new mendicant preachers, like the charismatic St. Francis of Assisi (1181-1226) and St. Dominic (1170-1221), the founders of the Franciscan and Dominican Orders.

Later Popes had to contend with an excommunicated Emperor, Frederick II, regaining Jerusalem by negotiation (Fifth Crusade), and then with St. Louis of France getting himself captured in Egypt (Sixth Crusade) and then dying in Tunisia (Seventh Crusade). That was about it.

While the last glimmers of the Holy Land were fading, the self-importance of the Papacy was expanding. Boniface VIII went the furtherest with this. The Popes were essentially going to be rulers of the world, deposing and enthroning rulers as they wished. These were naive and dangerous pretentions given some of the rulers that the Pope would have to deal with. The Emperor Henry IV might have been willing to stand in the snow as a penitant, but King Philip IV of France sent one of his agents, Nogaret, to do something about the Pope. With a gang of mercenaries, Nogaret seized Boniface in his summer palace at Anagni, holding him hostage and sacking the place. By one account, they intented to take him back to France for trial but then were driven off, and Boniface rescued, by the local citizens. On another account, they thought it impractical to move Boniface and simply left him without further harm. But they had broken his spirit, and he died weeks later.

In short order, a French Pope was elected, Clement V, who may actually have meant well but who ended up as a dupe and tool of Philip. Clement settled at Avignon, where the Papal Court then resided until 1377 -- later called the "Babylonian Captivity" of the Papacy. Clement was helpless against Philip's schemes, like the destruction of the Templars, even though the Crusading Order was under the direct authority of the Pope and was theoretically immune to French sovereignty. That didn't help them, and Philip ended up burning the Grand Master, without so much as notifying Clement beforehand. Subsequently, all of Europe saw the Papacy as an instrument of French policy.

Popes at Avignon during Great Schism

A [Clement (VII)Robert of Geneva]

1378-1394

A [Benedict (XIII)Petro de Luna]

1394-1417d.1423

1414-1418 Council of Constance, called by Emperor Sigismund, Papal interregnum 1415-1417

A [Clement (VIII)Gil Sanchez Muñoz]

1423-1429,d.1446

A [Benedict (XIV)Bernard Garnier]

1425-?in Armagnac

Finally, the Babylonian Captivity was ended when a French Pope, Gregory XI, returned to Rome, but not without great trouble wading in to Italian politics. When he died a new Pope was elected in Rome, but another was soon also elected at Avignon. This resulted in two Papacies, the "Great Schism," and the states of Francia lined up on one side or another. As with the Northern Emperors in Japan, the Popes at Avignon during the Schism are now considered Anti-Popes and not numbered in the succession.

1409 Council of Pisa, adds third Pope at Pisa

P [Alexander VPietro Philarghi]

1409-1410

P [John (XXIII)Baldassare Cossa]

1410-1415d.1419

This awkward and mortifying division of Catholic Christendom eventually moved many to find a solution. A Council at Pisa in 1409 elected a new Pope, but then the two old ones refused to resign. So the Great Schism now divided Europe in three, rather than just two. Even worse, the second Pope at Pisa, John XXIII, behaved so disgracefully that no legitimacy was left for the Pisa line, and no Pope would again take the name "John" for five hundred years, until 1958 -- then we get another John XXIII because the first was considered an anti-Pope and his number discounted.

Finally, a General Church Council was called at Constance by the Emperor Sigismund. All three Popes were asked to resign. They did, and the Schism was resolved with the election of a new Pope, Martin V. Although Benedict XIII at Avignon resigned, two more "Avignon" Popes were elected, though they were not in possession of the Papal city. The principle that Church Councils might be called by the Emperor and rule on matters of Church doctrine and discipline, although affirmed by Constance, was soon repudiated by Martin. The next Emperor who wanted to call a Council, and who had the power to do so, Charles V, nevertheless deferred to the claims of the Papacy (even though his army sacked Rome in 1527, driving out the hostile Clement VII).

No sooner was the Papacy out of all this trouble, however, that it got into new problems. The Popes became wealthy Renaissance Princes. Alexander VI Borgia became one of the most infamous Popes ever, with rumors of incest as well as murder dogging him. It has long been accepted that he produced multiple illegitimate children, like Cesare and Lucretia (Lucrezia) Borgia, kept Giulia Farnese as a mistress, and was so busy poisoning his enemies that it has long been thought that he accidentally poisoned himself and Cesare. This traditional view has now been forcefully disputed by G.J. Meyer in The Borgias, The Hidden History [Bantam, 2013]. Meyer finds the evidence that Alexander had any illegitimate children, or had any mistresses, unconvincing. Cesare and his siblings seem to have been born in Spain at the time when Rodrigo Borja was already a Cardinal living in Rome. The children may in in fact have great-nephews and nieces, as indeed they were often identified in contemporary accounts. That such relatives would have been brought to Rome, especially after their father died, was not unusual at the time. The greatest practitioners of using the Papacy to house and promote their family were actually Alexander's greatest enemies, the della Roveres. The documentation for Meyer's case, however, has long existed. It was meticulously collected by Peter De Roo and published in 1924 as Material for a History of Pope Alexander VI, His Relatives and His Times. This was "material for" rather than an actual history because De Roo was already 84 years old when the five volume work was published. Such a monument of Renaissance historiography, however, has been so neglected that when Meyer examined the copy held by the Bodleian Library at Oxford in 2010, the pages had not yet been cut -- 86 years after their printing. I had noticed that other historians were already walking back some of the accusaitions against the Borgias, for instance that Alexander seems to have been a victim of disease, not poisoning, from which Cesare himself recovered, later to die in battle (involved in the affairs of his Navarrese in-laws). The effort to blacken the reputations of the Borgias seems to have been launched by political enemies, especially from della Roveres such as Pope Julius II, later happily piled on by Protestants, looking for any iniquities in Rome.

The following tables contain some genealogy of the Borgias and the della Roveres. More della Rovere genealogy is given under the rulers of Urbino. Popes from a similiar family, the Medici, are featured in the genealogy of the Medici given with the rulers of Tuscany. Originally Spanish (Borja), Alexander VI's descendants through his son Juan returned to Spain and multiplied.

Showtime has been running a series on the Borgias [2011-2013], which, however, not only accepts all the prurient details of the traditional narrative, but is heavily fictionalized in other and easily discovered ways. Further comment on this can be found under the Aragonese Kings of Naples. The series badly misrepresents the fate of King Ferdinand II, whose brother was the second husband of Lucretia Borgia and whose sister was the wife of Goffredo (a person so far ignored in the series). Lucretia's first husband was Giovanni Sforza, from a collateral line of the Sforza's of Milan. I had some difficulty running down his descent, which was not shown in my usual sources but was not a problem to find at Wikipedia. Giovanni, however, although his marriage to Lucretia was indeed annulled for impotence, was not murdered by Cesare as in the television series. On the other hand, Cesare may have murdered Lucretia's second husband, Alfonso of Aragon and Naples, apparently in her presence. Lucretia's third, final, and apparently happy marriage was to the Duke of Modena. The series follows in some detail the doings of Giuliano della Rovere, but without tipping us off that he will become Pope Julius II or cluing us in that his own position at Rome was due to the nepotism of his uncle, Pope Sixtus IV. Julius did not become the target of personal smears, such as he promoted against Alexander VI, but his opposition to the Borgias was purely political and personal, without any disinterested justification.

Leo X, the first of the Medici Popes, under whom the Protestant Reformation began, is supposed to have said, "God has given us the Papacy, so we might as well enjoy it." He dismissed Martin Luther as "some drunken German," but Luther's movement not only shook Francia, it shattered it. A division something like the Great Schism happened again, but this time is not was not over who would be Pope, but whether there would be a Pope at all.

The political divisions of the Reformation were only settled by war. The Dutch revolted against Spain (1568), and as the Spanish kept trying to defeat them, the Emperor moved to suppress heresy in Bohemia (1618). After Imperial forces secured Bohemia and advanced in Germany, France began to subsidize opposition. This brought Sweden into the war; and after Swedish fortunes faded, France, a Catholic state, entered the war against the Catholic side. Spanish power was permanently broken, and the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 secured Dutch (and Swiss) independence and the Protestant states in Germany. The Pope lost even theoretical and spiritual authority over most of Northern Europe.

If we ever wanted to know what a Counter-Reformation Pope was like, all we need is the portrait of Innocent X (1644-1655) by Velázquez (from 1649/50). This is often regarded as Velázquez' greatest portrait, and it is perhaps one the greatest in all history -- and the subject of more than one disturbing interpretation by the artist Francis Bacon (1909-1992). Click on image for larger popup.

By the 19th century, Popes were spending much of their energy just trying to maintain their rule over Rome and the Papal States. They were ultimately unsuccessful. A Concordat with Napoleon (1801) meant that the Corsican took a crown from the hands of Pius VII to crown himself Emperor. Later, Napoleon annexed Rome and arrested the Pope for excommunicating him. A few years later, after riding out the troubles of 1848, Napoleon III came to the rescue of the Papacy with French troops who prevented the absorption of Rome into the new Kingdom of Italy. When French troops were withdrawn to fight Prussia in 1870, the Italians rolled into Rome, made it the capital of Italy, and the Pope removed himself to sulk in the Vatican (and proclaim Papal Infallibility at the Vatican I Council). This was the end of the 1116 year history of the Papal States. Pope Pius XI finally settled for a Concordat with Mussolini (1929) that gave him sovereignty over the Vatican City. This left him with nothing to do but worry about religion and morality, which the Popes have largely confined themselves to since -- as most Catholics probably figure that they should. The Pope's Swiss Guard, still in 15th Century costume (at least on ceremonial occasions), remains to remind us of the day when the Pope had armies.

In much recent writing, Pope Pius XII has been accused of being little better than a Nazi collaborator during World War II -- "Hitler's Pope," in the title of one book. There is one fact that all by itself refutes such charges. When the Germans occupied Rome after the surrender of Italy in 1943 and began rounding up Jews, no less than three thousand Jews found refuge at the Pope's summer residence, Castel Gandolfo (originally built, ironically, by the Roman Emperor Domitian). The Pope's own private apartments became an obstetrics ward. Critics of Pius generally ignore this case, or lamely and incredibly argue that this was done without the Pope's knowledge. That would have been, to say the least, impossible. But inferences are not necessary; the testimony and the evidence is abundant that Papal instructions to all were to rescue Jews. For instance, Tibor Branaski, honored by Israel as a "righteous gentile" for helping Jews escape Hungary, testifies that he worked with the Papal Nuncio, Angelo Rotta, who showed him letters from Pius with such instructions. Similarly, Angelo Roncalli, the future John XXIII, who had a Papal diplomatic post in Istanbul during the War, supplied immigration and transit papers to Hungarian and Slovakian Jews. In 1957, Israel thanked Roncalli, still a Cardinal, for what he had done. But Roncalli refused to take credit: "I referred to the Holy See and afterwards I simply carried out the pope's orders." Similarly, in 1955, an Israeli deligation asked Giovanni Montini, the future Pope Paul VI, if he would accept an award for what he had done to rescue Jews. Montini declined, again referring to his instructions from the Pope, and affirming that he had simply done his duty. One result of the Church's efforts was that 80% of Roman Jews and 85% of Italian Jews were saved from the Nazis. But to the "Hitler's Pope" crowd, this was apparently in spite of Papal indifference or even collaboration. This is hardly believable. In truth, Pius never approved of the Nazis, spoke out against them, and had no friendly dealings with them [cf. The Myth of Hitler's Pope, How Pope Pius XII Rescued Jews from the Nazis, by Rabbi David G. Dalin, Regnery Publishing, 2005]. The implication of the "Hitler's Pope" thesis, that Pius would have met with or had some understanding with Hitler, is all false. Indeed, the attacks sink so low that a photograph is used of Eugenio Pacelli, the future Pius XII, leaving a building guarded by German soldiers, with the implication that this was from a meeting with Hitler. In fact, it was Pacelli, who was a Papal diplomat in Germany, leaving a reception in 1928 for the German President, Paul von Hindenberg. The soldiers were those of the Weimar Republic.

A recent summary of the story is by Michael Burleigh:

High level of assimilation, and the low resonance of anti-Semitism also meant that many Italian Jews survived, although it helped that Italy had a dense network of ecclesiastical sanctuaries amenable to the instructions of Pope Pius XII, who, recent research shows, intervened to help the Jews with a familiar clerical combination of kindness that hardly justifies the Communist-inspired attempts to demonize him in the post-war years. While such sanctuary very occasionally involved attempts to convert Jewish children to Christianity, it should be recalled that the Franciscan friars who sheltered two hundred Jews at Assisi actually provided them with kosher meals, which suggests that conversion was not among their priorities. Rather it reflected the religious virtues of charity and hospitality. [Moral Combat, A History of World War II, Harper Press, London, 2010, p.468, bolface added]

While Burleigh may be referring to Italian Communists, whose own agenda would be pretty obvious, one wonders about the animus of American or other scholars whose anti-Catholicism may have some other inspirations.

Burleigh's "recent research" unfortunately appears to be missing from John Julius Norwich's new Absolute Monarchs, A History of the Papacy [Random House, 2011]. Norwich obviously dislikes and disapproves of Pius XII and mentions nothing in the way of mitigating evidence in regard to his actions in World War II. Norwich does cite the deeds of the Hungarian Church and of Angelo Roncalli in rescuing Jews [pp.449 & 454], but then he omits the testimony that these actions were on instructions from the Pope. Instead, we get some examples of anti-Semitic sentiments expressed by Pius, but mainly the case against him, such as we usually see in public discourse, is his silence, his "contemptible silence" [p.447], on the matter of anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. Norwich says that to Pius "even the deportation of Roman Jewry would be a small price to pay" to avoid a Communist takeover in the place of the Nazis [p.448]. Disregarding the fact that the Church, with many others, saved 80% of Roman Jews, one of the better records in Europe (worse than Denmark or Bulgaria but much better than the Netherlands, where 79% of Jews were deported), one might well ask whether an openly hostile Church would have had a better chance of working to save Jews rather than a Church that was more discreet and may consequently have had a relatively freer hand to work.

Since Confucius, moralists have esteemed deeds before words [Analects 4:24]. I am willing to believe that Pius XII was an unpleasant person, and his actions on behalf of the Jews may even have been grudging and in bad conscience, but if we do judge Pius by actions and not by words (or lack of them), Norwich's treatment is unfair and dishonest. It is Norwich's judgment that I question, not the least because of his expression of conventional anti-Americanisms, e.g. his apparent disapproval of "American materialism" in "the accoutrements of capitalist-consumerist society" [p.449] and a snide reference to "Senator Joseph McCarthy's America, where Reds were found under every bed" [p.451] -- a stale and probably thoughtless recycling of Soviet propaganda that there were no Soviet spies to find and that actual "Reds" were just honest liberals and not dissimulating agents of totalitarian dictatorship. No wonder that Norwich seems to have little sympathy for the anti-Communism of Pius XII, or even that of John Paul II. Norwich, like so many modern academics and intellectuals, need to consider why they are still repeating Marxist and Soviet propaganda decades after it has all been exposed and discredited.

This sort of thing, of course, is not to the credit of the Church or the Pope. Indeed, if Pius never had any use for the Nazis, the Church had much less of a problem with Mussolini's Fascism, or that of Franco in Spain (where Paveli died in 1959) or Salazar in Portugal. That a Fascist like Franco could actually shelter Jews fleeing from Vichi France means that Fascism as such was not necessarily anti-Semitic, but it is troubling that conservatives or nationalists of the time, like Mircea Eliade, nevertheless became attracted to regimes like those of Mussolini or Franco. Then, as now, collectivist and statist politics were all too appealing, both to left and right, and liberal ideals disparaged. Indeed, few would confuse the traditional Papacy with a source of liberal policies or exhortations.

Nevertheless, despite a less than perfect record of dealing with Fascists and fugitives, the Church was already on record as opposing the fundamentals of Fascism. Thus, in 1931 (just two years after the Concordat of 1929), Pope Pius XI had issued an encyclical, Non abbiamo bisogno, that condemned Fascism for its "statolatry," a charge on target for far too much of 20th century politics, but certainly especially apt for fascism and communism. The Fascists were accused of trying "to monopolize completely the young, from their tenderest years up to manhood and womanhood, for the exlcusive advantage of a party and of a regime based on an ideology which clearly resolves iself into a true, a real pagan worship of the State." This not only bespeaks the better angels of the Papal nature but is a caution for continuing political traditions, for long under the influence of Hegel, that denigrate the individual and exalt the reality of state and government. Critics of Catholicism should be careful of the statist log in their own eye before practicing their ophthamology on the Papacy. If Pius XII walked back the forthright rhetoric of Pius XI, we may not admire him for this, but, again, we must also weigh the words against the deeds.

As it happens, if we switch off between these Popes and Anti-Popes, it still leaves the count the same. So where does the difference come from between the 363 Popes up to John Paul II here and the 365 in the Catholic Encyclopedia? Well, the 365 number in the Encyclopedia list comes from numbering Benedict IX (1032) three times, as the 146th, 148th, and 151st Pope. He was a layman elected by the power of his family, the Counts of Tusculum, following his uncles Benedict VIII (1012) and John XIX (1024). Opposition to his family, to his own secular ways, and by the Emperor, resulted in him being deposed three times, first in favor of Sylvester III (1045), then second in favor of Gregory VI (1045). Gregory, Sylvester, and Benedict were all pushed aside by the Emperor Henry III, who installed Clement II (1046). After Clement's death, Benedict finally returned again, only to be deposed a third time in 1048 by Boniface of Tuscany, who installed the Emperor's candidate, Damasus II (1048).

It is because of this mess that Benedict, uniquely, like President Grover Cleveland, can be numbered with non-consecutive "terms" as Pope. I am not sure this makes as much sense for Popes as for Presidents, however. We are not really dealing with terms of office. If we ask "How many popes?" we want to know the number of individuals. So I have dispensed with the extra numberings. Reckoning them into the count, if anyone really wants to do that, does make John Paul II the 265th Pope (given the other judgments about Popes and Anti-Popes).

The count of John Paul II as 264th and Francis as the 266th Pope comes from using the three reigns for Benedict IX but not counting Stephen II (752), who died after reigning for only three days. Since he was properly elected but was never consecrated, judgment has wavered about whether to count him as a proper Pope. This results in different numberings seen for subsequent Stephens. Here, however, I have included the original Stephen II as a true Pope. The principle now is that someone becomes the Pope the minute he is elected and accepts the position. The consecration, like the coronation of a king, is extra. Edward VIII of England was never crowned, but he became King of England the minute his father, George V, died. This should determine that Stephen II was a proper Pope, regardless of former practices. Even if we discount him, however, I think it is very wrong to renumber the subsequent Stephens. This can create tremendous confusion when dealing with older (mainly pre-1961) histories, which will not have the renumbering. Stephen III was a Pope of great historical significance, and it should be possible to refer to him, or read about him, without confusion. There are several cases where Popes now considered Anti-Popes nevertheless retain their place in the sequence of names. Thus, Boniface VII (974), John XVI (997), Benedict X (1058), and Alexander V (1409) are now all Anti-Popes who nevertheless are figured in the numbering of subsequent Popes of their name. Since Stephen II had a legitimate election, and has never been considered an Anti-Pope by anyone, it is especially inappropiate to create confusion with anyone after him. As it happens, the Catholic Encyclopedia now sensibly follows the practice of keeping the number for Stephen II even though it does not number him as a proper Pope.

The only other Papal name where we get this kind of confusing renumbering is with "Felix." Felix II (355) was the early Anti-Pope with the name, but the subsequent Felixes, III (or II, 483) and IV (or III, 526), are early and not of great historical significance -- so not much confusion arises. However, the Anti-Pope Felix V (1439), chosen by the Council of Basle, and the last Anti-Pope, is of rather more importance, and appears to always be numbered with the Anti-Pope Felix II in the sequence.

There actually is no Pope John XX. When John XXI (1276) became Pope, there was some confusion about the numbering of the earlier Johns. Since John XXI styled himself the "XXI," this number has been allowed to stand, even when the confusion has been cleared up. How much more appropriate, then to retain even a discounted Stephen II.

There is another explanation why there is no "John XX," which is that for a while there was a mistaken belief that there had actually been two Popes numbered as a single "John XIV." When Pedro Julião (Petrus Hispanus) was elected Pope in 1276, he chose to be "John XXI" on the understanding that there had actually been twenty "Johns" at that point. However, if it was understood that there had been two Popes named "John XIV," it is not clear why a simple renumbering had not been carried out, as we have seen with the renumbering of the Stephens. John XXI's election would have been the appropriate occasion for that; but it did not happen. So perhaps "John XX" was thought to have been Pope Joan after all.

Many of the details of the story of Pope Joan were current so early that we find them in the history of the Greek historian Laonikos Chalkokondyles (c.1430-c.1465). Thus, he says that after a Pope is elected:

They seat him upon a chair with a hole so that his testicles dangle down and can be touched by a man appointed to that duty, and in this way it becomes clear that he is a man. They believe that long ago a woman attained the pontificate at Rome. The uncertainty was due to the fact that almost all men in Italy and the western lands regularly shave their beards. She then became pregnant and, when she went to perform the eucharist, she gave birth to a child during the ceremony in full view of the congregation. It is for this reason, so that they may know for certain and have no doubts, that they do this touching, and the person doing the touching calls out, "Our lord is a man!" [The Histories, Volume II, translated by Anthony Kaldellis, Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library, Harvard University Press, 2014, pp.38-39]

Here we do not have quite the same story as related above, since the scene of the birth during the procession is now instead at the performance of a Mass, but we have the detail of the "pierced chair" (chaise percée) that is part of the legend, and the test of the new Pope's genitals. Priests of the Orthodox Churches, of course, did not shave, which is why Chalkokondyles mentions that those of the Latin Church do. However, we are certain that at least one Patriarch of Constantinople was a eunuch, Ignatius (847-858, 867-877), a son of the Emperor Michael I Rhangabé, who had been castrated by the Emperor Leo V. We see images of Ignatius without a beard, which means he must have been castrated before puberty. The Orthodox Church displayed mixed feelings about eunuchs but tended not to blame or penalize them if the mutilation was not self-inflicted. But it was accepted that a eunuch could not be Emperor, hence the action of Leo V.

"Outside the Walls," fuori le Mura, which figures in the names of three of the Pilgrimage Churches, means outside the Aurelian Walls of ancient Rome, built by the Emperor Aurelian, 271-275 AD. The Vatican is also outside the Aurelian Walls, but it is inside the Leonine Walls, built 848-852 AD by Leo IV after the Arab sack of Rome in 846.

There are three "minor" basilicas among the Pilgrimage Churches, Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, St. Lawrence outside the Walls, and St. Sebastian outside the Walls. Santa Croce may be the most interesting of these churches. The site was originally the palace of the mother of the Emperor Constantine, St. Helena. On a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, 326-328, Helena is supposed to have discovered relics of the Crucifixion, including the Cross itself, the Titulus, which held the inscriptions attached to the Cross, and nails used in the Crucifixion. She reportedly ordered the building of the Church of the Holy Selpulchre on the site of her discoveries. St. Lawrence was originally constructed in the 6th century, and St. Sebastian in the 4th. St. Sebastian, on the Old Appian Way, is also called "at the Catacombs," because of the existence of catacombs under the church. However, in 2000, Pope John Paul II replaced St. Sebastian as a Pilgrimage Church with the Sancturary of Our Lady of Divine Love, which was only originally built in 1745.

Thus, it long seemed proper to the Papacy that there should be a Latin Patriarch for each of the original four Patriarchates that had split from Rome. The Crusades allowed for Latin Patriarchs to be installed in Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, and Alexandria. The latter was the most tenuous, since Alexandria was never in the hands of Crusaders. Also, the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople was no longer welcome there when the city was retaken by the Greeks in 1261. Consequently, the phenomenon developed of titular Latin Patriarchs actually living in Rome. The only such Patriarchate that survives today is the one for Jerusalem, which was reestablished in the city in 1847. The others were simply and finally abolished in 1954/65, as part of an outreach to Orthodoxy, especially to the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Apart from the historic Eastern Patriarches, there are also the "Minor" Latin Rite Patriarchates that have always been within the jurisdiction of the See of Rome. This began with Aquileia in 557 AD, which had actually split with Rome over the Fifth Ecumenical Council and thus claimed Patriarchal status to assert its independence. The independence didn't last long, but the title survived and indeed passed on to Grado and Venice. In asserting its own primacy, Venice saw to it that its rivals did not continue. Both are now pretty much forgotten, and I expect most people of some small familiarity with history may even think that Aquileia disappeared when sacked by the Huns in 452 AD, rather than continuing as a significant city and a Patriarchal Seat until 1751. The other Minor Pariarchates, of the West Indies, Lisbon, and the East Indies, were all a function of the Portuguese and Spanish colonial Empires. Only the See of the East Indies, at Goa, was ever actually outside of Iberia.

If the abolition of the Latin Patriarchates was a gesture to Orthodoxy, it was compromised by the existence of the "Uniate" Patriarchs. Thus, it became the practice of the Papacy to create "counter-churches" to uncooperative Orthdox Churches, retaining the rite and liturgical language of the original Church. To all superficial appearances, the counter-church might not look like a Latin or Catholic church at all. It may only be in matters of doctrine and Papal Supremacy that the new Church differs from the traditional one. Such a Church could be created out of whole cloth, or it often could be established because of a disputed election or some other schism in the local Church. On the other hand, by 1584 the Maronite Church, in the fastness of Mt. Lebanon, as a whole accepted Papal Supremacy. Now I hear that the Church had always been in communion with Rome, but this seems ahistorical both because the early history of the Maronites is very poorly known, because they apparently were Monotheletes, the doctrine of their founder, Maron, and because claims of Papal Supremacy scarcely existed in a credible way in the early Church of the Roman Empire. While the Maronite Patriarch, who has always resided in Lebanon, claims the See of Antioch, two other Uniate Churches, split off from the Syriac Orthodox and (Melkite) Antiochian Orthodox, also claim the See of Antioch. There are therefore three Patriarchs of Antioch all in communion with Rome. The Uniate Churches can be recognized because they usually have "Catholic" in their name, in contrast to "Orthodox" in the name of the traditional Church. "Uniate" or "Uniat" is sometimes thought to be insulting; but I don't quite get the insult, which, if based on the sort of colonial character of the counter-churches, will be offensive whatever name is picked to characterize the Churches.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the first German Pope in many centuries, was elected as Benedict XVI. Ratzinger was older, a close supporter of John Paul II, and very much more a Vatican insider, indeed a bureaucrat, than John Paul. Ratzinger was one of only two Cardinals who had elected John Paul himself and was still young enough to vote this time. His was seen as possibly a kind of transition Papacy, as John XXIII's was expected to be. But one never knows, as with John XXIII himself. More dramatic might have been the election of a Latin American, African, or, I don't know, an Irish Pope. Perhaps that comes next.

Next has come sooner than anyone expected. In February 2013 Benedict dramatically announced that he would abdicate as of February 28th. We should find out soon enough what will indeed come next. The comment is that this is the first resignation of a Pope since Gregory XII in 1415. However, the comparison is not good, since Gregory abdicated as part of the deal at the Council of Constance to clear the decks of the Great Schism. Many other Popes have been deposed, but I am not aware of other Popes who simply retired from the office.

On his first day as Pope, Francis drove himself to his hotel to pick up his own luggage. He stopped on the trip to pray at the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore. This was a practical and symbolic tribute to the Virgin Mary. To me, it is also noteworthy in that the church is a fifth century monument (432 AD), something that was built before the "Fall" of Rome but that, as a church, is rarely classified as a "Roman" construction. After all, it can't be from the Roman Empire if it isn't a ruin. I don't know if Francis had any of that in mind, but the comment in the press was that this was one of his favorite churches in Rome. Meanwhile, it sounds like Francis is reluctant to move out of his dorm room and take up residence in the proper Papal apartments. But he should be conscious that the dignity of his office may warrant some exceptions to his own inclinations.

Can it be just a coincidence the governments that fetter their economies in the name of social justice generally end up with more corruption and a class of elites enriching themselves on political connections while all others are left to fend for themselves? In this light, is it not a tragedy that a pope whose heart belongs to the poor reserves all his moral outrage for the one economic system that has already lifted billions of desperate people out of poverty?

Although Pope Francis was remembered for denouncing Marxist "Liberation Theology," we would soon learn that he nevertheless has imbibed all the anti-capitalist clichés that plague his homeland, Latin America, and much of the Europe where he now lives as Pope. On November 24, 2013, Francis released an "Apostolic Exhortation," Evangelii Gaudium, "The Joy of the Gospel," which contained the following passage:

Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories, which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized working of the prevailing economic system. [color added]

There are so many falsehoods and misconceptions in this statement that a small wager might be in order that Pope Francis has never read anything remotely sympathetic to or informative about Capitalism. First of all, no one explaining Supply Side Economics with any understanding would characterize it as a "trickle-down theory." As Thomas Sowell says:

Those who attribute a trickle-down theory to others are attributing their own misconception to others, as well as distorting both the arguments used and the hard facts about what actually happened after the recommended policies were put into effect. ["Trickle Down" Theory and "Tax Cuts for the Rich", Hoover Institution Press, 2012, pp.10-11, color added]

Thus, a business is obliged to pay workers whether the business is successful or not, profitable or not. If the idea is that wealth for workers somehow "trickles down" from profits, this puts the matter exactly backwards. In turn, if profits are plowed back into a business, increasing its capitalization and productivity, this allows products to be sold more cheaply, which benefits all consumers. Since profits rest entirely on successful sales, a business must, again, be of benefit to the public before further profits can be made. This is nothing "trickling down," but sales are the very means by which a business, hopefully, can be profitable in the first place. In both cases, paying the workers and successful sales, the up-front benefit is not for the capitalist or his profits. This, indeed, is the risk that is characteristic of capital and investment. Businesses go bankrupt every day.

On the other hand, a government that loots the productive in order to distribute largess to the masses is engaging in the genuine "trickle-down," since much of the loot remains in the hands of the political class, bureaucrats, and their cronies, from whose tables the crumbs then fall to the hoi poloi -- or at least that part of the hoi poloi whose votes politicians particularly want to buy. By living simply, Pope Francis does not want to benefit in that way, but his attitude is unusal and generally unheard of when it comes to politicians, whose sense of their own self-importance characteristically is without bounds. Of the thirteen richest counties in the United States in 2012, eight of them are in a ring around Washington, D.C. They are wealthy off of the government. So much the less to pass on to the masses.

Beyond that, Pope Francis says that defenders of capitalism "assume" that it will be beneficial, which is a baseless ad hominem accusation, since free market economists do not "assume" anything of the sort and the accusation of Francis that they do so betrays an ignorance, and an ignorant hostility, for the nature of their arguments. And if Francis is going to say that capitalist theory has "never been confirmed by the facts," he might want to consider, specifically, what the facts are that economists cite, which presumably fail to make their case, or what facts he thinks refute capitalism. We hear nothing of the sort.

But the worst misconception comes next, that defenders of capitalism have a "crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power." Since economists from Adam Smith on have explicitly and clearly denied that they have any such trust, or that the goodness of actors in the market is any kind of postulate or expectation of the system, upon which its success would rest, then Francis has clearly done no research in this matter at all and has no knowledge of it. The honesty of businessmen is enforced first of all by those with whom they deal, who do not wish to be cheated, and by the government, whose job it is to enforce laws that protect persons, property, and contracts, and which provides the civil court system to resolve disputes that may arise either from good faith confusions or dishonesty. Francis and other ignorant critics of capitalism do not seem to be aware of these provisions. Or, as good Marxists, they simply detest capital and profits whatever their origin.

Finally, we get another cheap shot, that capitalists regard the "prevailing economic system" as "sacralized." This again attributes to others an attitude that, in a Pope, we might expect him to know something about. But there is nothing sacred about the market, except in the sense that it protects the sacred freedom and rights of citizens that it embodies, as opposed to the official thieves and looters who are the alternative that we can imagine is recommended by someone like Pope Francis -- whose recent complacent regard for the vicious government of Venezuela looks like an endorsement for some of the worst tendencies of our day. This does not inspire confidence in the economic, political, or even moral judgment of Pope Francis.

It is suitable to treat at some length the misconceptions and falsehoods in the statement of Pope Francis because these ideas have now been taught in American public schools for decades and are bearing bitter fruit in American, let alone foreign, politics. The constant assault on business, finance, banks, and Wall Street by the Obama Democrats who currently dominate American politics and government is nothing less than an assault on capitalism by people who clearly have no understanding or regard for freedom and who apparently have very different arrangements, with the precedents of France, Greece, and Venezuela, if not Cuba and North Korea, in mind. The continuing troubles of France and Greece, let alone the terror and poverty of the other countries, does not seem to trouble them. And the cluelessness and mindlessness of American students (and their teachers), who supposedly have been taught (and are teaching) "critical thinking" for some time, is shocking. But, of course, there is nothing "critical" about their instruction, except in Marxist terms.

A clue about where Francis is coming from may be found in The Economist of March 8th-14th, 2014:

The political landscape of Francis's homeland, however, offers a more accurate, and nuanced, understanding of his views. For most of his life Argentina has plotted a kind of third way between Marxism and liberalism -- albeit one with disastrous political and economic results. "[Francis] only knows one style of politics," says a diplomat accredited to the Holy See. "And that is Peronism." [p.61]

Since Peronism destroyed the level of economic development of Argentina, which has never recovered (i.e. the "disastrous political and economic results"), and where such ideas continue to distrupt any hope of recovery, it cannot be said that Francis, if his views are indeed Peronist, has anything like a successful model of economic development. He is as clueless as the political culture of his own country -- or as that of American universities.

The sentiments expressed by Pope Francis were later seconded by one of his advisers, Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga of Honduras, on 3 June 2014, at a conference called "Erroneous Autonomy: The Catholic Case Against Libertarianism," sponsored by The Catholic University of America. Maradiaga reportedly said, "Many of these libertarianists [sic] do not read the social doctrine of the church, but now they are trembling before the book of Piketty." Few if any libertarians are going to be "trembling" before Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century, especially after François Hollande stalled the French economy by putting into effect Piketty's recomendations for massive tax increases. If these foolish and ignorant ideas of Pope Francis and Cardinal Maradiaga are not "Liberation Theology," how would that be different?

In the Fall of 2015 it is looking more and more as though there is no difference between Pope Francis and "Liberation Theology." Activists previously condemned for their Marxism have been rehabilitated. Francis has now visited Cuba without acknowledging the repression and political prisoners of the regime, and without insisting on meetings with political dissidents, who were arrested to prevent their approaching him. So, while palling around with the Castros, Francis implicitly supports their police state. John Paul did not act that way with the Communist rulers of Poland. Francis has joined President Obama in the whitewash and fraudulent rehabilitation of the Cuban regime. At the same time, Francis has embraced the anti-energy, anti-wealth, anti-humanist, and anti-American ideology of "global warming," to the point of condemning air conditioning as "unfettered consumerism." Meanwhile, he still does not seem to have noticed that his sort of Peronism has ruined and impoverished Argentina.

Thus, it looks like the Cardinals made a serious mistake. They thought they were electing and modest and pastoral Pope, but what they got was an ignorant, vicious, and destructive ideologue. That he does seem personally modest and unassuming only makes it worse. If the mildest and nicest person condemns people to poverty and dictatorship, this doesn't make them any better and makes it likely to deceive the naive and foolish. The Leftists who have suddenly forgotten their horror and contempt at Catholic ethics are neither naive or foolish, but they know a useful idiot when they see one. With Francis visiting New York, Philadelphia, and Washington, they are rocking the band wagon with their enthusiasm. If John Paul could rise from the grave in divine wrath, it is high time he did so.

Detailed histories of the Papacy are readily available. The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, by J.N.D. Kelley [Oxford, 1986, 1988], has good discussion of all Popes individually. Chronicle of the Popes, by P.G. Maxwell-Stuart [Thames and Hudson, 1997], sometimes doesn't have as much on individual Popes but supplements this with extensive illustrations and maps, like other books in the Thames and Hudson "Chronicle" series. Now there is the narrative history Absolute Monarchs, A History of the Papacy, by John Julius Norwich [Random House, 2011]. Some defects in this history are discussed above. The dates here are now taken out of the Oxford Dictionary.

From the map of Archbishoprics around 1500 (Historical Atlas of the World, Barnes & Noble, 1970, 1972, p.49) we can see that although Mainz, Trier, and Cologne are not that far from each other, their jurisdictions were extended to cover much of early Mediaeval Germany. Trier's domain almost perfectly matches that of Upper Lorraine, while that of Cologne is all of Lower Lorraine plus a bit of northern Germany. The jurisdiction of Mainz, then, covers much of the original area of East Francia, excepting only area under the Archbishops of Salzburg that included Bavaria. Otherwise, what we see at the margins are areas into which East Francia expanded with March territories, under the authority of the Archbishoprics of Magdeberg, Bremen, and Hamburg. The North March, east of Magdeberg, developed into the Margravate of Brandenburg.

While Mainz, Trier, and Cologne are today all in Germany, they were for a time within the borders of Revolutionary and Napoleonic France, which expanded to the Rhine. The secular power of the Archbishops was brought to an end by Napoleon in 1803. The last Elector of Mainz, Karl Theodor, was first transfered as a secular Elector to Regensburg and then, after Napoleon abolished the Empire (1806), to Frankfurt as a Grand Duke -- until Napoleon was defeated and Frankfurt became a Free City. Mainz, Trier, and Cologne were not restored to pre-Napoleonic Ecclesiastical rule or independence.

Meanwhile, most of Upper Lorraine above Trier had been permanently annexed to France -- with the exception of Luxembourg -- and most of Lower Lorraine had lost its indentity to the Netherlands, including the future Belgium. Parts of Lorraine around Cologne and Trier, however, remain in Germany today.

The bishoprics begin with a curious chapter in Church history. The first fully historical Bishop and then Archbishop of Mainz on the list was an English (or Anglo-Saxon, if you like) missionary, Wynfrith, later Boniface, of Crediton. In 718, at the age of about 43, Boniface left England to evangelize among the Germans. He coordinates his efforts by visiting the Pope three times and consulting with the powerful Carolingian Mayors of the Palace of Merovingian Francia, principally Charles Martel but then also Pepin the Short, who became King shortly before Boniface's death. Boniface brought a number of other English missionaries with him, including the nun St. Walburga who became an abbess in Germany, and who suffered the curious fate of having Walpurgisnacht, a sort of Springtime Halloween on April 30, grow up around her memory. This is discussed elsewhere. Since the letter "w" as used in modern German and Dutch was borrowed from English, I wonder if this may have been introduced by Boniface himself. However, written German isn't attested until, I think, the 9th century; so Boniface may be a bit early.

Bishops, Archbishops, Electors

Mainz,Moguntiacum

Trier,AugustaTreverorum

Cologne,Colonia Agrippina

Bonifatius, Wynfrith or Boniface of Crediton

Bishop,722-732

Archbishop,732-754

Crowns Pepin III King of Francia, 751; martyred at Dukkum by Frieslanders, 754

The lists of all the Archbishops of Mainz, Trier, and Cologne are taken from the Regentenlisten und Stammtafeln zur Geschichte Europas, by Michael F. Feldkamp [Philipp Reclam, Stuttgart, 2002, pp. 295-306 & 348-352] and from Wikipedia.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is the Primate of England. His seat is at Canterbury because this was the capital of the Kingdom of Kent, an obvious place for St. Augustine, who was sent in 596 by Pope Gregory (I) the Great (590-604), to seek royal favor, from King (later St.) Æthelbert I, for his mission. The early Archbishops, down to Taetwine (Tatwin) are given by the Venerable Bede (673-735) in his History of the English Church and People (731). The first part of this is still well in the Dark Ages, but it is already not too long before the time of Bede himself.

Several Archbishops are particularly noteworthy. St. Anselm was one of the most important philosophers of the 12th century, responsible for the "ontological argument" for the existence of God which would bedevil subsequent thinkers. He was himself a Lombard who had entered a monastery in Normandy. As Archbishop, he was involved in the particular political dispute of his time, trying to strip secular rulers, in this case the Kings of England, of their powers to designate bishops of the Church. In Germany, this occurred as the formidable and epic Investiture Controversy (1076-1122). Things got so hot that Anselm spent some years in exile (1097-1100, 1103-1107).

Soon after Anselm came Thomas à Becket, who had been a friend and official of King Henry II but after becoming Archbishop entered into further attempts to limit secular authority, in this case in defense of clerics accused of crimes. Since the crimes were sometimes things like murder and rape, for which Becket's ecclesiastical courts often only handed down nominal punishments, it is understandable that Henry took exception to clerical immunity to secular prosecution. A careless wish expressed by Henry resulted in Becket's murder. While Becket was immediately canonized and enthusiastically venerated, he was not a selfless advocate for justice, but a rather foolish champion of clerical privilege who seems to have almost been eager to provoke his own martyrdom. He did succeed, and long afterwards inspired rather good books, plays, and movies of the business. Although some of these make Becket out to have been a Saxon, defending native Englishmen against Norman rulers like Henry, he was actually just as much a Norman himself -- engaged in a process of protected priests from justice in manner whose modern versions draw little sympathy for the Church.

After many centuries, Thomas Cranmer was the first Protestant Archbishop, helping King Henry VIII to break the Church of England away from Rome, seize monastic properties, etc. This earned him arrest by the subsequent Catholic Queen Mary. Tortured into confessing to heresy, Cranmer was going to be burned at the stake nevertheless. At the event, he recanted his confessions and thrust his own hand into the flames for signing the coerced documents, saying, "This hath offended; oh, this unworthy hand!" The Martyr's Memorial stands outside Balliol College, Oxford, where Cranmer and two other prelates were excecuted.

The See stood empty during the Civil War (1640-1649), Commonwealth (1649-1653), and the Protectorate (1653-1660) of the Cromwells but has had to endure little in the way of such political trials since. Instead, the Church has tried so hard, despite being a State Religion, not to be judgmental, exclusive, or demanding that it has seemed to cease to stand for, or mean, much of anything. It has thus steadily lost membership and excites comments like the following, from Michael Whelton:

This position of so-called "inclusiveness" back in the 1950s and 1960s was perceived by many in the British Isles as slightly preposterous. Sadly, the Anglican Church lost respect, influence, and relevance, becoming the target of much satire and the butt of many jokes. One comedian declared, "In England we have a wonderful institution called the Anglican Church, and no one from Joseph Stalin to Mao Tse Tung can say with any certainty that he is not a member." [Popes and Patriarchs, Conciliar Press, 2006, p.15]

Even better we have the classic poem by T.S. Elliot, "The Hippopotamus," comparing that animal, favorably, to the Church of England. The poem can be examined in a popup.

We see a classic expression of the 19th century politics of the Church of England in Anthony Trollope's Barchester Towers (1857), with conflict between the traditionalist High Church and the Evangelical, Protestantizing Low Church. Indeed, even today the Anglican Church remains ritually so close to the Roman Catholic Church that Anglican priests who convert to Catholicism are accepted as Catholic priests, even if they are married. They are, I believe, the only married priests in the Catholic Church.

Already in the 19th century there were some high-profile converts to Catholicism, such as John Henry Newman (1801-1890), who went on from a pinacle of Anglican scholarship at Oxford to be a Catholic priest (1846) and then cardinal (1879) -- and now appears to be on the path to sainthood. Nevertheless, he is still commemorated at Oriel College, Oxford, where he obtained a fellowship in 1822. There he steadily moved from Calvinist sentiments and association with the Low Church to the creation of the High Church "Oxford Movement." This led steadily on towards Catholcism and conversion in 1845.

The current Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Douglas Williams, seems to have been at pains to discredit himself as a sensible person. Thus, he told the BBC that the imposition of Sharia Law, i.e. Islamic religious law, a goal of Islamic Fascism, now seems "unavoidable." This led Theodore Dalrymple to say:

The English national church has long been an object of amusement and derison among the intelligent and educated, and the current Archbishop of Canterbury succeeds in uniting the substance and appearance of utter foolishness and unworldliness, not with sanctity, but with sanctimony. [The New Vichy Syndrome, Why European Intellectuals Surrender to Barbarism, Encounter Books, 2010, p.64]

The path trod by Cardinal Newman was followed, at first, by the author cited above, Michael Whelton, who, however, becoming as disillusioned with the Church of Rome as with that of England, continued on into an Orthodox Church in communion with Constantinople. The bloodlessness of Anglican religion seems to be shared by its American counterpart, the Episcopal Church, which was once the preference of the American social and political elite, from George Washington on, but now has also given itself over to the sort of "inclusiveness" and leftist social activism that has little patience with traditional Christian doctrine, ritual, or moral expectations. Such Christian Churches, as with Archbishop Williams himself, have none of the confidence, spirit, or even belief necessary in the face of the militancy of modern radical Islam.

Salzburg was a very large eccelesiastical state. Its principal claim to fame may be as the birthplace of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1736-1791). Apart from European tours, Mozart lived in Salzburg and worked for the Archbishop (who has been described as "strict and unkind") until 1781. At this time, of course, composers could be treated as feudal retainers not much above the status of footmen. Mozart then died in poverty and was buried in an anonymous pauper's grave in Vienna. Before long, composers like Ludwig van Beethoven became such figures of public celebrity that such a fate was unthinkable.

Another minor claim to fame for Salzburg may be that the location shots for the 1965 movie The Sound of Music were in or near the city. For people who have not visited the area, the movie contains the images of the Alps that they probably retain.

Before Mozart's time, there had been a event of some interest in Salzburg. In 1731, the Archbishopric discovered to its alarm that there were about 20,000 Protestants living in the high Alpine valleys. It is in the first place remakable that, two centuries after the beginning of the Reformation, the authorities had not noticed that these people were there. Obviously the archepiscopal government had rested lightly in the area, which was probably as remote and inaccessible as any place in Europe -- even today there are some places in Austria that you can really only get to from Germany, and in Switzerland from Austria. It is also remarkable, however, that the Archbishop had no intention of tolerating the faith of these people. It seems a bit late for such attitudes, but incidents like this were not all that unusual even in the 18th century. Without much military of his own, the Archbishop Leopold Anton asked Bavaria and Austria for the forces to crush local resistance and compel the Protestants to convert to Catholicism under duress.

All of this, of course, became a cause célèbre in Protestant Germany. King Frederick William I of Prussia offered to resettle all the Protestant Salzburgers in East Prussia, where recent plague and famine had significantly reduced the population. The Archbishop evidently prefered to crush rather than expel his Protestants -- reminding everyone of the attitude of Pharaoh towards the Israelites in Egypt. But King Frederick William had leverage: he would not endorse the "Pragmatic Sanction," by which the Emperor Charles VI could leave Austria to his daughter Maria Theresa, unless the Emperor compelled the Archbishop to let his Protestants go. So he did; and in 1732 Germany was treated to the spectacle of an Exodus indeed, with the migrating Salzburgers showered with food, gifts, and money as they passed through Protestant districts on the way to Prussia, as the whole thing was celebrated in print and sermon throughout Germany for some time to come. [Christopher Clark, Iron Kingdom, the Rise and Downfall of Prussia, 1600-1947, Belknap Press, Harvard, 2006, pp.141-144].

Eventually Salzburg fell to Napoleon's rearrangements of Europe. In 1803 it was made an Imperial Electorate for the deposed Hapsburg Duke of Tuscany, Ferdinand III. When Napoleon gave the city to Austria in 1806, Ferdinand was moved to Würzburg, which became a Grand Duchy when Napoleon abolished the Empire in the same year. In 1809 Napoleon took Salzburg from Austria and gave it to a better ally, Bavaria; but then Austria got it back at the Congress of Vienna. Since 1815 it has remained part of Austria. Ferdinand returned to Tuscany.

The list of the Archbishops of Salzburg is taken from the Regentenlisten und Stammtafeln zur Geschichte Europas, by Michael F. Feldkamp [Philipp Reclam, Stuttgart, 2002, pp. 295-306 & 348-352].

Constantinople now fades from memory. Its name resonates like something from legend or mythology; and many who hear the name may not quite know what it was or where to place it in their conceptual or historical universe. Indeed, it belongs to something that most would think of as oxymoronic or impossible: the Mediaeval Roman Empire. As Schopenhauer says of what is excellent, Constantinople is "like a meteorite, sprung from an order of things different from that which prevails here" [The World as Will and Representation, Volume I, §59, Dover Publications, 1966, E.F.J. Payne translation, p.324].

To someone who hears only the drumbeat that Rome "Fell" in 476, this introduces a sort of cognitive dissonance. Something isn't quite right there. Something doesn't compute. Something must be rethought. Indeed, Constantinople requires much rethinking. It was the last capital of the Roman Empire, Roma Nova, , "New Rome," or hê Kônstantinoú Polis, , Constantinopolis, the "City of Constantine," for many centuries the largest and richest city in Europe and Christendom, the repository of much of Greek and Roman Classical learning. It was often simply called "Rome," Rhômê in Greek, or Byzantion, Byzantium, its old name as a Greek colony, or hê Konstantiou, "the, of Constantine," with "City" elided, or just hê Polis, "The City."

When the City Fell to the Turks in 1453, it became much the same thing again, the largest and richest city, in Islâm (outside, perhaps, India), a repository of its own wealth, learning, and romance, still echoing in the Maltese Falcon [1930]. Now, as Istanbul, the City is simply a large modern city, the largest in Turkey, but no longer a capital, a fortress, a redoubt, or a beacon of culture or religion. Nevertheless, among the ruins, like those of the great Land Walls, there is one fragile institution that survives from the earliest days: the Office of Christian Patriarch of Constantinople.

The Cathedral Church of Constantinople was the Church of "Holy Wisdom," Hagia Sophia in Greek, Sancta Sophia in Latin, and Ayasofya as rendered into Turkish (based on the Mediaeval and Modern Greek pronunciation). This was built in its present form by the Emperor Justinian, although subsequently damaged by earthquakes and then restored. At the Fall of Constantiople to the Turks in 1453, the Church was converted into a mosque, with minarets added. Fortunately, the many mosaics of the Church were painted over rather than destroyed. With the secularization of the Turkish state by Atatürk, the building became a museum, and the mosaics were uncovered. However, even while a small chapel has been added for Islamic worship, Christian worship is still prohibited in the building. While in its day Hagia Sophia was architecturally unique, and remained so for centuries -- also as the largest Church in Christendom -- the Ottomans began to build great mosques in the same style, culminating in the Sultan Ahmad (I), or Blue, Mosque nearby, built adjacent to, and using many of the stones from, the classical Hippodrome. The style of the Church has thus entered the canons of Islamic architecure, even while the form of churches developed separately.

While the early Church Councils conceded to the Papacy the position of primus inter pares, "first among equals," this did not give to the Popes any special authority. Second place in precedence was acknowledged for the Patriarch of Constantinople by the Ecumenical Council II of 381, though this was somewhat resented by the older Patriarchates at Alexandria and Antioch. The elevated status for Constantinople was because, of course, this had become the seat of the Emperor, beginning with Constantine, and the principal capital of the Roman Empire. Even when there was a Western Emperor, his seat was no longer at Rome, but in Milan and Ravenna. Indeed, more of the Ecumenical Councils were held in Constantinople (II, V, VI, VIII) than elsewhere -- and Council IV was held just across the Bosporus in Chalcedon.

In Constantinople it was unmistakable that the Emperor imposed a unity on the Church that it would not otherwise have, and that would not otherwise be claimeduntil the Papacy began arrogating powers to itself that otherwise had belonged only to the Emperor or to Church Councils. I have discussed above how the term "Caesaro-Papism," often used for the role of the Emperor in Constantinople, is applied more appropriately to the Popes themselves, whose claims and accumulation of power were an innovation, while the role of the Emperor had precedents all the way back to Constantine (and earlier, when a Roman Emperor was the Pontifex Maximus). What ends up being distinctive about the Orthodox Churches in communion with Constantinople is that, although Constantinople was responsible for the establishment of several such Churches, e.g. Bulgaria and Russia, the new ones ended up with independent authority, i.e. they were autocephalous, and were in no way subordinate to Constantinople the way the Popes expected national churches to be obedient to them. The principle is still that Orthodox Churches base their doctrine on the Ecumenical Councils. Orthodox Churches not in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople today reject one of the seven Councils noted in the list of Patriarchs. Thus, the Church of the East rejects Council III and the Monophysite Churches of Egypt and Syria reject Council IV. As shown in the diagram, the Churches loyal to Constantinople in the traditional Patriarchates, generally called "Melkite" ("Royal" or, really, "Imperial"), are the Antiochian Church of Antioch, the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem, and the Melkite Church of Alexandria. Otherwise, we see national Churches of Greece, Bulgaria, Russia, etc., that are in agreement with Constantinople without being governed by it. Since the Patriarch of Constantinople, living in Turkey, no longer is responsible for the national Church of a traditionally Christian nation, he has come to be simply the "Ecumenical Patriarch."

A curious institution that is governed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, or at least operates under his direct authority, is the "Holy Mountain," Hágion Óros, Mt. Áthôs. This is the most north-eastern of three peninsulas that extend out into the Aegean Sea from the larger peninsula of the Chalcidice. There are still 20 active monasteries on the Mountain, with a number of smaller settlements and institutions. The road from the mainland ends at Uranopolis (or Ouranoupoli, one now usually sees spellings that reflect modern Greek pronunciation -- I have Latinized many of the names, but the spelling of the monasteries especially reflects this trend). From there one (men only) must take a boat down to Daphne. From Daphne a road, recently built, goes up to Caryes (Karyes, Karyai), the town that is the administrative center of the Mountain, on the land of the Koutloumousiou Monastery. Although most Greek churches operate under the authority of the autocephalous Greek Orthodox Church, Mt. Áthôs is still under the direct jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Over the years, monasteries were founded, not just by Greeks, but by Georgians, Serbs, Bulgarians, Russians, and even Italians. The Italians are now gone (there being the Schism and all), but there are also (modern) Romanians present, though they do not have their own monastery. Mt. Áthôs thus unites all the Orthodox Churches who share the theology of Constantinople. The mysticism of the theology of Mt. Áthôs contrasts with the humanism of Mistra -- this is discussed elsewhere in relation to the Renaissance. The Great Laura Monastery, the first of many in this most sacred place, the Mt. Hiei, , of Orthodox Christianity, was built (961-963) by St. Athanasius during the Macedonian Dynasty. Tradition holds with some earlier foundations, and several small hermitages, as well as individual hermits in caves and elsewhere, certainly had been there for some time; but the Great Laura is the first for which there is contemporary historical documentation.

There are many more Patriarchs of Constantinople than there are Popes. Since the Emperor was present in the City, and religious issues were political issues that concerned the Emperor and the populace, many Patriarchs were deposed in doctrinal, jurisdictional, and purely political disputes, sometimes even to be reinstated. This problem continued under the Ottomans, when the Sult.ân deposed Patriarchs 105 times, and 6 were even killed. Also, the Sult.ân once (1587) confiscated the Patriarchal seat, at the monastery of St. Mary Pammakaristos. The traditional Cathedral of Constantinople, of course, was the great Church of Santa (Sancta/Hagia) Sophia. With the Ottoman Conquest, this was immediately taken over as a mosque. The Patriarchate briefly was based at the second church of the City, the Church of the Holy Apostles, which may already have been in disrepair. Afterwards, it was demolished by the Ottomans for the Mosque of the Sult.ân Meh.med II (Fâtih. Jâmi-i). When the Patriarchate settled in the Phanar Quarter, it was forbidden to build a new church, and forbidden to have any church with a dome. The church of St. George has been rebuilt more than once, and is still the seat of the Patriarch.

As in the Francis Ford Coppola quote discussed above, I begin to see popular comparisons of the Othrodox Church with Catholicism and Protestantism. Much Orthodox antipathy seems to be directed at St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430), even though Augustine lived long before the Schism between the Churches and so does properly count as a Saint in the Orthodox as well as in the Catholic tradition. Nevertheless, the Orthodox view seems to be that things in the West really began to go wrong starting with him. Augustine is unfavorably compared with his contemporary, St. John I Chrysostom ("Golden Mouth," c.347-407), Patriarch of Constantinople, 398-404. One issue that definitely engages moderns is their attitude towards sex. Augustine sees Original Sin embodied in sex, and the involuntary sexual response itself represents the rebellion of Adam and Eve against God. Before the Fall, arousal was under voluntary control. This now seems rather bizarre, as it already did to Chrysostom. The Greek Church did not make the strong connection between sex and sin that the Catholic Church did. One consequence of this may have been the allowance for clerical marriage under Constantinople but the eventual requirement of clerical celibacy under Rome. To be sure, Christianity is conflicted. St. Paul does say "It is better to marry than to burn" [I Corinthians 7:9], where we are given to understand that fornication is punishable by damnation. At the same time, orthodox Christianity did not go as far as Neoplatonism, Manicheanism, or Gnosticism, where matter and the body can be construed as intrinsically evil, requiring celibacy for all those, lay or clerical, seeking Salvation. For a world-denying religion, Christianity represented a kind of Middle Way between ascetic mortification and hedonistic excess. Just where it comes down in the Middle is the question. It is clear from Genesis that the Fall has something to do with sex, since Adam and Eve become ashamed of their bodies. Whether this is a matter of privacy or of evil is open to interpretation. After the Essenes, Judaism found nothing wrong about suitably private sexual activity. The Orthodox Church seems more in this vein. Having rebelled, not against God but against Catholicism, Protestantism has gone in many directions, though nearly all Protestant Churches have become accustomed to divorce, despite clear statements by Jesus against it except for adultery [Matthew 5:32]. The Catholic Church had drifted into forbidding divorce for any reason -- but now increasingly provides annulments as the equivalent. Orthodox divorce is easier than in Catholicism, though not as easy as in Protestantism. Orthodox priests can marry, but then they cannot rise further in the hierarchy. Thus, the Church tends to get governed by priests who have taken monastic vows on top of the priesthood, and remain celibate. This is definitely more in the Christian tradition, where Protestants completely ignore the saying of Jesus: "And there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it" [Matthew 19:12]. Catholics forgot the "he that is able" part, while Protestants forget the whole thing.

Although the list of Bishops of Byzantium is given from the early days of the Church, this was not a particularly important city at the time, and one wonders about its historicity even more than with the early Bishops given for Rome. Much the same might be said about the early Armenian Church. The establishment of Christianity in Armenia (301) and by Constantine (312) for Rome, and then the founding of Constantinople (324-330), all bring the lists fully into history -- whence to continue until the present day.

A benchmark on the survival of Classical and later Greek literature can be found in the Bibiotheca of the Patriarch Photius the Great (858-867, 877-886), which contains 280 reviews. This is not a catalogue of existing literature, or of a particular library, not even that of Photius. It is a treatment of works familiar to Photius, apart from the mainstream of general education, that Photius is recommending to his brother Tarasius. Thus, popular authors like Homer, Plato, Aristotle, or the Greek playwrights are missing from the list. Photius' treatment ranges from brief descriptions and evaluations to long summaries and discussions. Of the 386 works mentioned by Photius, 239 are theological. Nevertheless, only 43% of the text actually focuses on them. The majority of the text (in a book whose modern edition in Greek is 1600 pages long) is thus secular. For example, in addressing A History of Events After Alexander (in ten books) by the Roman historian Arrian of Nicomedia (an early member of the Second Sophistic), we get a long summary of those very events, which are often obscure enough that every description helps. Although much of Arrian survives, and his Anabasis Alexandri is the best account of the campaigns of Alexander, all we have of A History of Events After Alexander is Photius' summary. Our benchmark is that about half of the works mentioned by Photius, like the Events, are now lost. It is distressing to think of what survived, despite the Dark Ages, and then what later disasters, like the Fourth Crusade, may have cost us. It is hard to imagine an undisturbed Constantinople being subsequently so careless with its literary heritage. At no other Court of the age could visitors have found the nobility quoting Homer. [cf. Photius, The Bibiotheca, A selection translated with notes by N.G. Wilson, Duckworth, London, 1994.] Photius, whose Bibliotheca was only part of his literary output, was a major political figure and himself was responsible for the mission of St. Cyril (Constantine, 827-869)and Methodius (826-885) to convert the Slavs.

When the Crusaders took Constantinople in 1204, a Latin Patriarch was installed. This event, of course, is still remembered with bitterness in Greece and all the Orthodox Churches, since it fatally weakened in the Orthodox world in the face of the threat of the Turks. Even when the City was retaken by the Palaeologi in 1261, the Latin Patriarch fled, and the line continued with a titular Patriarch living in Rome until falling vacant in 1948. The position was than formally abolished, with some other Latin Patriarchates, in 1965, certainly as part of the ecumenical reconciliation of Pope Paul VI with the Patriarch Athenagoras. This confusion of multiple Patriarchs, however, is typical for the other classical Patriarchal Sees. No less than four prelates, for instance, claim the title of Patriarch of Alexandria and of Jerusalem. There are also at least six Patriarchs of Antioch.

After the Turkish conquest, Meh.med II saw to it that an Armenian Patriarchate was installed in Constantinople. It has survived ever since, although few Armenians remained in Turkey after World War I and its aftermath. The first Patriarch, Hovakim, was the Metropolitan of Bursa, which had been the Ottoman capital prior to Constatinople and Adrianople. This institution was part of the Ottoman "Millet" (i.e. "nation") system, where the Patriarch consequently had authority over all Armenian Christians in the Ottoman Empire. The "Millet" provided for communal autonomy in areas that were not preempted by the national government or by the involvement of Muslims. The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople was in turn responsible for the "Millet of Rûm," which more or less meant Greek Christians in the Empire, but strictly speaking included anyone else under the religious authority of the Patriarch.

While most Americans would think of the Patriarch of Constantinople as the head of the Greek Orthodox Church, this is not necessarily the case and gives rise to some confusion. The problem began when Greece revolted against the Turks in 1821. The unfortunate Patriarch Gregory V (1797-1798, 1806-1808, & 1818-1821) was actually hanged because of suspected sympathy for the revolt, or perhaps just to discourage and terrorize local Greeks. Greek independence was recognized in 1830, and a Greek national Church then broke away from the Patriarchate in 1833. The Patriarch recognized the Greek Church as autocephalous in 1850. At that point, the "Greek Orthodox Church" can simply mean the Greek national Church, not the Church of the Patriarch. Further tension between Greece and the Turks occurred in the Balkan Wars and World War I, when Greece was fighting with the Allies. After the War, Greece then tried to seize Smyrna (Izmir). Soundly defeating the Greeks, the Turks directed considerable displeasure at the unfortunate Patriarch and then expelled nearly all ethnic Greeks remaining in Turkey -- as part of an "exchange" with Greece, so that Christians left Turkey and Muslims left Greece -- although many of the former were actually Turkish speaking and the latter Greek speaking. This means that the Patriarch is just about all that is left of the ancient Greek community in Istanbul.

Over the years, the question must have come up many times whether the Patriarch should simply quit what now is so unfriendly a City. Fortunately, he has not, and so a single institution continues in Istanbul that has survived right from the days of Constantine. Now, since confusion would arise by calling the Patriarch's Church "Greek Orthodox," it has become customary to identify him as the "Ecumenical" Patriarch. Before 1833, however, worries about the Church of Constantinople not being the "Greek Orthodox Church" would be anachronistic. Since the language and liturgy of the Church of Constantinople has always been Greek, "Greek Orthodox" in historic terms is always going to mean the Church that used the Greek language. "Greek Orthodox" is still used for other Churches, as of Jerusalem, that have nothing to do with the Greek national Church but that are in doctrinal communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople.

The Walls of Constantinople, initially completed in 413, despite their preservation, are rarely noted or acknowledged as one of the architectural wonders of the Ancient World. This is probably because of the ideological blind spot that afflicts historians who dislike the world of Late Antiquity and ignore or despise "Byzantine" history. There came to be strong religious associations with the Walls. They were protected by Holy Icons like the Hodêgêtria (the Virgin who "Shows the Way," kept at the Hodegon Monastery) or the Blachernitissa (or Blacherniotissa), the Virgin of the Chruch of Mary at Blachernae, where the Maphorion, the Robe of the Virgin, was kept and where there was a miraculous Spring, quite close to the Wall itself. The Icon had been brought out to protect the City during sieges (the Maphorion is supposed to have repulsed the Avars in 626). Both Icon and Robe disappeared with the Fall of the City -- although there is no mention of them after the Church burned in 1434. One story, however, is that the last Emperor, Constantine XI, was praying to the Icon the night before the City fell, and as he watched, it was taken up to Heaven. He therefore knew what was going to happen the next day. Similarly, the Emperor, whose body disappeared when he threw himself into the fight as the Turks breached the Walls and poured into the City, was believed by many to subsequently be asleep under the Golden Gate, though which he would rise and reënter the City. This may be one reason why the Golden Gate has been kept closed up since the Conquest, and the Turkish government has at times displayed some alarm at reports of mummified bodies being transported out of the City.

There is no way of knowing whether St. Mark was the first Patriarch of Alexandria, but there is little doubt that the Christian community in Egypt is very old. Even before Christianity was officially tolerated, Egypt was one of the strongholds of the new religion. There seem to have been affinities between Christianity and traditional Egyptian religiosity. Some of the iconography of traditional Egyptian religion could be adapted to Christianity. Isis suckling Horus now becomes Mary suckling Jesus. Egypt also benefits from the Biblical tradition that Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt with Jesus to avoid Herod's slaughter of the children. Sites of the Family's sojourn are still revered.

The influence of the Egyptian Church on the Church in general then becomes considerable. Monasticism really began in Egypt, apparently with St. Antony (d.356). The most important doctrinal influence, however, came from the Patriarch St. Athanasius, who attended the Council of Nicaea in 325, strongly opposing the doctrine of Arius (Arianism) that Christ was perfect Man but not perfect God. Since Arianism enjoyed considerable Imperial favor until Theodosius I, Athanasius experienced a good deal of trouble. He was exiled to Trier (335-337) and then to Rome (339-346). Constantius II tried to arrest him in 356, but he escaped into the desert until the Emperor died in 361. He was unmolested from 366 to his death in 373. Several opposing Patriarchs will be noted in the list. Athanasian Orthodoxy, that Christ was God of God, was established at the Second Ecumenical Council in 381. But even centuries later, we find a Unitarian like Thomas Jefferson complaining that Athanasius was the one who had ruined Christianity, turning it from a moral teaching into magical superstition. However, what could be more Egyptian than the idea that the King is God!

The next great doctrinal controversy involving Egypt had grave and enduring consequences for the Egyptian Church. At the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451 the doctrine was condemned that Christ had only one Nature. This was Monophysitism, from monê physis, "one nature," , in Greek. Greek and Latin Orthodoxy would be that Christ had two Natures, human and divine. One Nature, however, was the position of the Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria, , who was then deposed. But that was nowhere near the end of the matter. The Egyptians supported Dioscorus and Monophysitism, and their support soon translated into a national revival and a cultural, at least, revolt against the Imperial (the Roman Catholic) Church.

Melkite or GreekPatriarchs of Alexandria

Timothy III

460-475,477-482d.482

Peter III

477,482-489

John I

482 ,d. 489

Athanasius II

489-496

John II

496-505

John III

505-516

Dioscorus II

516-517

Timothy IV

517-535

Theodosius I

535-536,d.566

[Gainas]

535, d.?

Paul

537-540,d.?

Zoilus

541-551,d.?

Apollinarius

551-569

John IV

569-579

[vacant]

579-581

St. Eulogius I

581-607

St. Theodore

607-609

St. John V

610-619

[vacant]

619-621

George I

621-631

Cyrus

631-643

Peter IV

643-651

[vacant]

651-727

Theodore II

Coadjutor,c.662

Peter V

Coadjutor,c.680

Peter VI

Coadjutor,c.691

Theophylactus

Coadjutor,c.695

Onopsus

Coadjutor,c.711

Cosmas I

727-768

Politianus

768-813

Eustatius

813-817

Christopher I

817-841

Sophronius I

841-860

Michael I

860-870

Michael II

870-903

[vacant]

903-907

Christodoulus

907-932

Said ib BitriqEutychius

933-940

Sophronius II

941

Isaac

941-954

Job

954-960

[vacant]

960-963

Elias I

963-1000

St. Arsenius

1000-1010

Theophilus II

1010-1020

George II

1021-1052

Leontius

1052-1059

Alexander II

1059-1062

John VI

1062-1100?

Eulogius II

c.1110

Sabbas

c.1117

Cyril II

?

Theodosius II

?

Sophronius III

<1166-1171

Elias II

1171-1175

Eleutherius

1175-1180

Mark III

1180-1209

Nicholas I

1210-1243

Gregory I

1243-1263

Nicholas II

1263-1276

Athanasius III

1276-1316

Gregory II

1316-1354

Gregory III

1354-1366

Niphon

1366-1385

Mark IV

1385-1389

Nicholas III

1389-1398

Gregory IV

1398-1412

Nicholas IV

1412-1417

Athanasius IV

1417-1425

Mark V

1425-1435

Philotheus

1435-1459

Mark VI

1459-1484

Gregory V

1484-1486

Joachim

1486-1567

[vacant]

1567-1569

Silvester

1569-1590

Meletius I

1590-1601

Cyril III

1601-1620

Gerasimus I

1620-1636

Metrophanes

1636-1639

Nicephorus

1639-1645

Joannicius

1645-1657

Paisius

1657-1678,d.1681

Parthenius I

1678-1688

Gerasimus II

1688-1710,d.1714

Samuel

1710-1712,1714-1723

Cosmas II

1712-1714,1723-1736

Cosmas III

1737-1746

Matthew

1746-1766,d.1775

Cyprian

1766-1783

Gerasimus III

1783-1788

Parthenius II

1788-1805

Theophilus III

1805-1825

Hierotheus I

1825-1845

Artemius

1845-1847,d.1852

Hierotheus II

1847-1858

Callinicus

1858-1861,d.1889

Jacob

1861-1865

Nicanor

1866-1869

Sophronius IV

1870-1899

Photius

1900-1925

Meletius II

1926-1935

Nicholas V

1936-1939

Christopher II

1939-1966,d.1967

[vacant]

1966-1968

Nicholas VI

1968-1986

Parthenius III

1987-1996

Peter VII

1997-2004

Theodore II

2004-present

The Egyptian Church now began using the spoken language of Egypt, later called Coptic, as its liturgical language, writing it in an adaptation of the Greek alphabet. This now preserved complete the latest stage of the Ancient Egyptian language, which in the 19th century became one of the keys to the decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphics. The Church then began appointing its own Patriarch. We thus get a Schism represented by the Monophysite Patriarch, the Coptic Patriarch, often called the Coptic Pope, opposed by the appointee of the Imperial Church, called the "Greek" or "Melkite" Patriarch.

"Melkite" means "Royal" (compare Hebrew melekh and Arabic malik), i.e. "Imperial." Since the Melkite Patriarch had little popular support in Egypt, one might expect that the Arab Conquest in 640 would have ended the line; but it didn't. Both Patriarchates continue down to the present. Indeed, there have been no less than four "Patriarchs of Alexandria":

The original Coptic Patriarch, who has resided in Cairo since 960, when the city was founded by the Fatimid Caliphs (969).

The Greek or Melchite Patriarch, given at right.

The Latin Patriarch. In 1215, 1219, or thereabouts, during the Crusades, as at Constantinople, a Latin Church was created for Alexandria. In recent history, however, the titular Latin Patriarch lived in Rome, ruling through an Apostolic Vicar in Alexandria. The See fell vacant in 1954 and finally was simply abolished in 1964.

The Coptic Catholic Patriarch. Despite the existence of a Latin Patriarch of Alexandria, and perhaps because he resided in Rome, in 1741 the Catholic Church organized a Coptic Counter-Church (the Coptic Catholic Church), which is like the Coptic Church in every way except that it accepts Roman doctrine and authority. At first this Church was headed by an "Apostolic Vicar," who, for all I know, may originally have been the representative of the Latin Patriarch. In 1895 the Vicar was raised to the status of a Patriarch. Counter-Churches have been created by Rome for many Eastern Churches. They sometimes differ in curious details from the original Church, for instance that the Coptic Counter-Church uses the Gregorian Calendar rather than the Julian Calendar still used by the Copts. Where the Coptic New Year is usually September 11, as in 2002, the Counter-Church would observe it on August 29. The Coptic Catholic Patriarch has lived in Alexandria, at the Church of the Resurrenction, whose construction was funded by the Austrian Emperor Franz Josef and dedicated in 1902.

The Schism over the Council of Chalcedon may have helped the Arab Conquest, since there was little local support for the persecuting Empire. The Patriarch of Alexandria, who would have been Andronikos (with some opposition), is supposed to have said that it was the Will of God that Egypt should fall to the Arabs. At the same time, European polemicists for many centuries would view the Arab Conquest as the punishment of God visited upon the Schismatics for their heterodoxy. In the long run, as the Copts suffered increasing persecution and the marginalization and erosion of the commmunity, their status has begun to seem no better, and indeed much worse, than it had been under the rule of Constantinople. Orthodox persecuation gave literary life to the Coptic language. The Islamicization of Egypt has erased it as a spoken language.

A noteworthy moment in the history of the Egyptian Church was the career of the Melkite Patriarch Said ib Bitriq, or Eutychius (876-940, Patriarch, 933-940). Eutychius wrote a history of the world in Arabic, the Nazm al-Jawhar, or String of Pearls, beginning, as Mediaeval histories often did, with the Creation. This account is still of considerable interest because it is the first source to relate the story of the destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria after the Arab Conquest. However, Eutychius was writing three hundred years after the event and may be suspected of some bias and hosility. Since the story anachronistically includes both the 7th century Arab conqueror of Egypt, 'Amr ibn al-'As., and the 6th century philosopher John Philoponus (c.490-c.570), we may suspect it of being a fabrication.

After the Conquest, conversion to Islâm and use of the Arabic language began to spread in Egypt. The Coptic language survived as a spoken language at least until the 17th century. Now it only survives as the liturgical language of the Church. Coptic Christians, however, have been leaving Egypt, in great part because of attacks from Muslim fanatics that have developed as the result of the recent increase in Islâmic militancy. Not long ago, Copts were 10% of the population of Egypt. Now they may be no more than 6%. A Coptic desk calendar I have for 1997 was printed in Brooklyn. It is largely in English but is partially bilingual in....Arabic.

When I was in Egypt in 1969, my tour group from Beirut was met at the El-Moallaka Church in Old Cairo by the Priest, Shenouda Hanna. I bought a book he had written, Who Are The Copts?, which he autographed. The Coptic Patriarch at the time was Kirellos VI. Now, since 1971, the Patriarch is Shenouda III, and I find myself wondering if this is Shenouda Hanna. There are many Coptic websites about the Patriarch, but I have not been able to find the biographical information that would clarify the issue.

Finding complete lists of these Patriarchs has not been easy. Fortunately, Bruce R. Gordon's Regnal Chronologies came through, as it often has, even though the Patriarchs are not really "regnal." Gordon has lists of Patriarchs for many other Eastern Churches, but they don't always seem to be clearly identified with their doctrinal and institutional affiliation.

One traditional duty of the Patriarchs of Alexandria was appointing the Archbishop and Primate of Ethiopia, the Abune or Abuna (Arabic for "Our Father"). The first such appointee was Frumentius, a Syrian who had been living at the Ethiopian court for some time and journeyed to Alexandria in order to ask for a Bishop to be appointed. Traditionally, it is supposed to have been St. Athanasius himself who then appointed Frumentius to the post. However, the known dates of Athanasius are a bit late for the likely date of Frumentius's trip. After the advent of Islam, communication between the (now Coptic) Patriarch and Ethiopia was interrupted; but in the 12th century, appointments were resumed. It was always an Egyptian Coptic monk who was appointed; and by the 20th century, Ethiopians were beginning to think that maybe it was time for an Ethiopian to be Primate of Ethiopia. Negotiations over this in 1929 still resulted in an Egyptian monk as Archbishop and Primate, but with four Ethiopians concecrated as Bishops.

Coptic CatholicApostolic Vicars

Athanasios

1741–?

Giusto Marsghi

?–1748

Jacques de Kremsier

1748–1751

Paolo d'Angnone

1751–1757

Giuseppe de Sassello

1757–1761

Roche Abou Kodsi Sabak de Ghirgha

1761–1778, 1781, 1783–1785

Gervais d'Ormeal

1778–1781

Jean Farargi

1781–1783

Bishai Nosser

1785–1787

Michelangelo Pacelli de Tricario

1787–1788

Mathieu Righet

1788–1822

Maximos Jouwed

1822–1831

Théodore Abu Karim

1832–1855

Athanasios Kyriakos Khouzam

1855–1864

Agapios Bishai

1866–1876

Antoun di Marco

1876–1887

Antoun Nabad

1887–1889

Simon Barraia

1889–1892

Antoun Kabes

1892–1895

Coptic Catholic Patriarchsof Alexandria

Kyrillos Makarios

1895-1908

Maximos Sedfaoui

locum tenens, 1908–1927

Markos II Khouzam

1927–1958

Stéphanos I Sidarouss

1958–1986

Stephen II Ghattas

1986–2006

Antonios Naguib

2006–2013

Ibrahim Isaac Sidrak

2013–present

After World War II, an Ethiopian, Basilos, had already been elected Primate, and in 1950 the Coptic Patriarch recognized him. In 1959 the Coptic Patriarch recognized the Ethiopian Church as an autocephalous Patriarchate, although in communion, of course, with Alexandria.

In an ecumenical era, the doctrine of the Coptic Church has been subject to some rethinking. It has recently been brought to my attention that the Coptic, the Syrian Orthodox, and the Armenian Churches have rejected the term "Monophysite" and adopted the term "Miaphysite." The doctrinal difference that goes along with this, as I understand it, is that Jesus was both human and divine, as the Latin and Greek Churches agreed, but that these are united in One Nature. Now, this possibility goes all the way back to the original dispute. In the 5th century, Monophysites could be "Eutychian," that the One Nature of Jesus was entirely divine, or "Hesitant," that the One Nature was both human and divine. The latter could also be called "Severan" Monophysitism, after the deposed Patriarch of Antioch, Severus, who for some years led the Monophysite movement from exile in Egypt.

Now, Jesus being both human divine was precisely what the Latin and Greek Churches meant by "two natures." But Monophysites thought that "two natures" implied Nestorianism. The "Hesitant" or "Severan" formula showed some promise of unifying the doctrine of the Churches, but historically that didn't happen. If the "Miaphysite" formula, although the modern version of this, has a similar promise of ecumenical unification, that's fine -- though I don't know how the Pope or the Patriarch of Constantinople have responded. Today, the Coptic, Syriac, and Armenian Orthodox Churches all like to deny that they were ever Monophysite, meaning Eutychian, and that somehow this was all a misunderstanding of the theology. I think this is more an issue for historians than for interested theologians to decide. Warren Threadgold (A History of the Byzantine State and Society, Standford University Press, 1997) says that while most Monophysites were Hesitant (p.99), Dioscorus himself was indeed Eutychian (p.96). Terminologically, one thing that I have to go on is the explicit statement of Father Shenouda Hanna, in the book cited above:

The Coptic Orthodoxy has clung from the very beginning to the doctrines of monophysitism and monothelitism, that is the one nature and one will of Jesus Christ. [op.cit. p.22]

Since this was published in 1967, my guess would be that it antedates the introduction of the term "Miaphysite." This term itself doesn't help in understanding the doctrine. "Monophysite" combines monos, "one, sole," with physis, while "Miaphysite" combines the independent word for "one" in the feminine gender (to agree with physis), mia -- . Between monos and mia there is a distinction that doesn't make a difference, though certainly such a terminological difference can be used to represent conceptual differences. For example, "monotheism" means belief in one God, while "henotheism," using the independent word for "one" in the masculine gender, henos, has been used to mean belief in many gods, where one in particular is superior to the others (e.g. Zeus in Greek religion).

Thus, "Miaphysite" could be used, by definition, to mean absolutely anything. Now, I can understand the Copts and others being annoyed at terms from Greek and Latin Heresiology being applied to them, so "Miaphysite" accompanies a proprietary claim of self-description -- something very popular in ethnic identity movements. But if they think that "Monophysite" was improperly applied to them just because it always only meant the Eutychian doctrine, this is not true.

A curious presentation of the controversy is found in the recent Theodora, Actress, Empress, Saint, by David Potter [Oxford, 2015]. Potter says:

...in the decades after Chalcedon, an increasingly bitter divide split the Church between, on one hand, the mostly Syrian and Egyptian theologians who maintained the single divine nature of Christ -- hence their identification as "Miaphysites" or "Monophysites," in much modern scholarship -- and supporters of the Council's decision, who were largely found in Anatolia, Palestine, and the empire's western provinces. [pp.19-20]

Here Potter implies that all dissenters to Chalcedon believed in "the single divine nature of Christ" and that terms like "Miaphysite" and "Monophysite" are modern and interchangeable. This seems to be wrong in several ways, since the Hesitant Monophysites thought that the one nature was both divine and human, while "Miaphysite" has been introduced precisely to deny the Eutychian form of monism.

In a footnote to this passage Potter gives us a bit more:

To hit on a general term to describe the theological opponents of Chalcedon is difficult, but to use the term "Monophysite" at this period is problematic as there was not a single coherent positive theology, hence my choice of the term "anti-Chalcedonian," which, while not ideal, comes closest to accuracy. [p.229 1:21]

This is equally odd. Potter himself has just given what looks like a sufficient "single coherent positive theology," namely "the single divine nature of Christ," to warrant the use of the term that actually was used at the time, namely "Monophysite." He discusses none of the controversy that has motivated the introduction of "Miaphysite," and so he really leaves any details of Monophysite theology uninvestigated. If other scholars avoid either "Miaphysite" or "Monophysite" just to avoid the arguments, Potter might at least say so. Otherwise, spurning both "Miaphysite" or "Monophysite" is unmotivated; and "anti-Chalcedonian" has the drawback of encompasing Nestorians (who ceased being part of the Catholic Church after the Third Council) as well as Monophysites. Potter refers to the Eutychian doctrine in the text, but only describes it as "so extreme" that the (Monophysite) Second Council of Ephesus condemned it [p.168]. We get no details about what it actually is, or how other Monophysite theology, i.e. the Hesitant, differed from it. This does not seem like proper attention to the matter in a scholarly book about the era and its religious disputes.

See the similarly awkward treatment with John Haldon's The Empire That Would Not Die, where "Miaphysite" is uncritically used, without explanation or discussion.

The list of the bishops of Antioch down to Cyril is given by Eusebius, the 4th century historian of the Church [The History of the Church, Penguin, 1965]. The rest of the list is from different websites. As with the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, the main list is commonly identified as "Greek Orthodox," but historically means the Melkite, i.e. Imperial, Church, which was in opposition to the Monophysite Patriarchs who rejected the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Today this line is self-identified as the "Antiochian Orthodox" Church, and the term "Melkite" is no longer used for it. The "Separation of the Melkites" in 1724 was a schism in the Church where a branch came into existence that entered into communion with Rome and is now called the "Melkite Greek Catholic" Church. The Greek Church was literally headed by Greeks until the "Restoration of the Arab Patriarchs" in 1899, when we get Arab, i.e. Syrian, instead of Greek Patriarchs. Antioch today is part of Turkey, separated from Syria by the French in 1939. The "Antiochian" Patriarch resides in Damascus.

My understanding is that there are at least five different lineages claiming to be the Patriarchs of Antioch, as follows, with the addition of the discontinued Latin Patriarchate. Two of these are Catholic Counter-Churches, created or recognized by the Vatican to duplicate the native "Schismatic" Churches in outward form, but agreeing with Rome in doctrine and in acknowledging the authority of the Pope.

Orthodox Melkite, as with the Melkite Church at Alexandria. This is the line often called "Greek Orthodox" as it is in conformity with the theology of the Patriarch of Constantinople, although, like many such Orthodox Churches, autocephalous i.e. autonomous. The Church today is self-characterized as the "Antiochian Orthodox" Church. "Melkite" is generally no longer used. The Patriarch actually resides in Damascus.

Catholic Melkite, a Catholic Counter-Church for the Melkite one. However, this was not created by the Catholic Church but originated in a disputed election in 1724. In 1729 the losing candidate was recognized by the Pope as the Patriarch Cyril VI, who then entered into conformity with Roman doctrine and authority. Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) recognized Maxim III (1833-1855) as Patriarch of Alexandria and Jerusalem as well as Antioch. Thus, even today the Church is self-styled the "Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch and all the East, of Alexandria, and of Jerusalem."

Syriac Orthodox. "Syrian" Orthodox is now a term avoided to prevent confusion with the modern state of Syria, although historically the Chruch was indeed associated with geographical Syria, and as late as 1981 the Patriarch Zakka Iwas confirmed that the proper name of the Church was the "Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch," and that any other name "is not only alien and foreign, but also a distortion, falsification and forgery of the historical truth" -- a barb that was probably aimed more at the Assyrians than at any use of the term "Syriac." This Church is often called the "Jacobite" Church, a name that comes from Jacob Baradaeus (Yaqub bar-Addai), who was made Bishop of Edessa in 542 and then promoted Monophysite theology. Previously the Monophysite cause was championed by the Patriarch Severus of Antioch, who had been deposed (518) but then led the movement from exile in Egypt. He died either in 538 or 546, and so possibly was off the scene when Jacob Baradaeus became active -- where his activity included travelling around through Egypt and Syria ordaining Monophysite priests. The first of the line of Monophysite Patriarchs of Antioch, Sergius of Tella, appears soon afterwards (544) The installation of Jacob was on the recommendation of the Monophysite Ghassanid ruler al-Harith V to the Empress Theodora. The Monophysite sympathies of Theordora thus fostered the very existence of the Syrian Orthodox Church. Edessa came to be the center of Syrian Orthodox intellectual life, long remained an important city in the Middle Ages, and was one of the early Crusader States. The ancient language of Edessa was a dialect of Eastern Syriac and, as Classical Syriac, became the intermediary of transation of Greek philosophy ultimately into Arabic. Edessa today is the city of Urfa in Turkey. The large Syriac Christian population of the area was hit by the Turkish attacks on Armenians and other Christians during World War I and today has dwindled to a small remant. Similarly, there are Syriac Orthodox Christians in Iraq who have also suffered from Islamist and nationalistic attacks. Thus, the largest Syriac Orthodox communities are in the United States, the Netherlands, and other Western countries.

Syriac Catholic, the Catholic Counter-Church to the Orthodox one. It began with a disputed election in 1782, with the Catholic candidate recognized by Rome in 1783. There had previously been two Catholic counter- Patriarchs between 1662 and 1702.

Maronite. The Maronite Patriarch in Lebanon is styled the Patriarch of Antioch. The Church is now doctrinally in union with Rome, avoiding the need for a Catholic Counter-Church.

The language of Roman Syria and Palestine was a descendant of Aramaic. This is usually still called "Aramaic" by linguists and anthropologists but "Syriac" by historians. After the Schism over Chalcedon, Syriac replaced Greek as the liturgical language of the local Church. This grew into something of larger historical importance, as various books of Greek philosophy, as well as religious works, were translated into the language. Syriac translation of Greek philosophers then became models and stepping stones to the Arabic translations of the 9th century, usually carried out by Syriac speakers who learned Greek and Arabic. The dialect of Syria proper, Western Syriac, only barely survives in three villages near Damascus. Interestingly, we thus see that the Syrian linguistic and religious boundaries are different, with the former west of Edessa and the later East of it. The cultural and religious boundary, indeed, reflects that of the Late Roman Empire. The map below right shows the contrasting boundaries.

Antioch is named after the second monarch of the Hellenistic Seleucid Dynasty, Antiochus I Soter. It is now a little hard to recapture the sense that it used to be the principal city of Syria (the third largest city of the Roman Empire, after Rome and Alexandria) right down to when it was taken by the Mamlûks in 1268. After that, Damascus quickly grew to dominance, and the Patriarchate reflects this when its seat was transferred there in 1342.

The Schism between the Imperial and Monophysite Churches is delayed a few years after Chalcedon. The Patriarch Severus was deposed in 518 and exiled to Egypt, but he retained the loyalty of most of the local Church, which elected a new Patriarch, Sergius of Tella, to succeed him -- though, as noted, active leadership was by then largely in the hands of Jacob Baradaeus. The area soon becomes troubled with war. In 540, Shah Khusro I of Persia sacked Antioch, while the Roman army was away fighting in Italy. This victory was commemorated with the construction of the Arch of Ctesiphon, the greatest suriving monument of Sassanid Persia. The Persians were back in 611, and by 613 had conquered all of Syria. The Emperor Heraclius defeated them with an invasion of Persia itself, and all the Persian conquests were restored in 628. The respite was brief. The Arabs secured all of Syria by 640. This abruptly introduced religious and cultural changes unlike any seen in Antioch since the city was founded by the Seleucids. Indeed, although Antioch remained the principal city of the area for a while, it was never the home of an Islamic state, like Damascus or nearby Aleppo.

Maronite Patriarchs of Lebanon

St. Youhanna/John Maron I

d.410

Qorush/Cyrrhus/Cyr

Gebrael/Gabriel I

Youhanna/John Maron II

Patriarch,687

Youhanna/John I ?

Gregorius/Gregory I

Estephanos/Stephen I

Marcus/Mark

Eusebius

Youhanna/John I/II

896

Yeshua/Joshua I

Daoud/David I

Gregorius/Gregory II ?

Theofelictus/Theofelix/Habib

Yeshua/Joshua II

Domitius/Dumit/Dumith

Isshak/Isaac

Youhanna/John II/III

Semaan/Simeon/Simon I /Chamoun I

Gregory II ?

Ermea/Jeremiah ?

Youhanna/John III/IV ?

Chamoun II ?

Chamoun III ?

Joseph El Gergessi

1110-1120

Peter I

1121-1130

Gregory of Halate

1130-1141

Jacob of Ramate

1141-1151

John III

1151-1154

Peter II

1154-1173

Peter of Lehfed

1173-1199

Jeremiah of Amshit

1199-1230

Daniel of Shamat

1230-1239

John of Jaje

1239-1245

Simon II

1245-1277

Daniel of Hadshit

1278-1282

Jeremiah of Dmalsa

1282-1297

Simon III

1297-1339

John IV

1339-1357

Gabriel of Hjula

1357-1367

John V

1367-1404

John of Jaje

1440-1445

Jacob of Hadeth

1445-1468

Joseph of Hadeth

1468-1492

Symeon of Hadeth

1492-1524

Moussa Akari of Barida

1524-1567

Michael Rizzi of Bkoufa

1567-1581

Sarkis Rizzi of Bkoufa

1581-1596

Union with Rome, 1584

Joseph Rizzi of Bkoufa

1596-1608

John Maklouf of Ehden

1608-1633

George Omaira of Ehden

1633-1644

Joseph Halib of Akoura

1644-1648

John Bawab of Safra

1648-1656

George Rizkallah of Bseb'el

1656-1670

Stephen Douaihy of Ehden

1670-1704

briel of Blaouza

1704-1705

Jacob Awad of Hasroun

1705-1733

Joseph Dergham Khazen of Ghosta

1733-1742

Symeon Awad of Hasroun

1743-1756

Toubia El Khazen of Bekaata Kanaan

1756-1766

Joseph Stephan of Ghosta

1766-1793

Michael Fadel of Beirut

1793-1795

Philip Gemayel of Bikfaya

1795-1796

Joseph Tyan of Beirut

1796-1808

John Helou of Ghosta

1808-1823

Youssef Hobaish of Sahel Alma

1823-1845

Youssef El Khazen of Ajaltoun

1845-1854

Boulos Massad of Ashkout

1854-1890

Hanna El Hajj of Dlebta

1890-1898

Elias Hoayek of Hilta

1898-1931

Antoun Arida of Bsharri

1931-1955

Boulos Meoushi of Jezzine

1955-1975

Anthony Khoraish of Ain Ibl

1975-1986

Nasrallah Sfeir of Reyfoun

1986-2011

Bechara Boutros al-Rahi

2011-present

Unlike the other cities of Syria, however, Antioch returned more than once to Christian control. In 969, the Emperor Nicephorus II Phocas, riding on the reviving fortunes of Romania, recovered the city. It remained Roman for a good century, but then fell to the Seljuk Turks in the aftermath of the disastrous defeat at Manzikert in 1071. This catastrophe, however, set off a response -- the Crusades.

Antioch was the scene of one of the most formative events of the First Crusade. It was the greatest obstacle on the way to Jerusalem. Arriving in October 1097, the Crusaders did not get into the city until 3 June 1098. They were immediately beseiged in turn by Kerbuqua, Atabeg of Mosul. This looked like the end of the Crusade. However, the Franks were heartened by a vision that led to the discovery of the Holy Lance, the weapon that had pierced the side of Christ. They were thus inspired to sortee against the Atabeg's army, on 28 June 1098, and won a complete victory. In January 1099 Bohemond of Apulia was left as Prince of Antioch, and the rest of the Crusaders left for Jerusalem. Antioch remained a Crusader State until 1268.

When the Mamlûks took Antioch in that year, they largely destroyed the city, so that it could not again become a Christian foothold. They need not have worried, since no Christian power would come close again for centuries. Antioch became a minor city, eclipsed by Aleppo and Damascus.

A Christian power, however, did eventually determine its modern fate. When France occupied Syria as a League of Nations Mandate in 1920, they did so against active opposition, and during their tenure had to deal with violent resistance. It may have simply been a kind of anti-nationalist revenge that in 1939 France ceded Antioch and Alexandretta to Turkey. The cities continue under Turkish sovereignty, as Antakya and Iskenderun.

When I visited Antioch in 1970, I walked out of town to the cave Church traditionally associated with St. Peter. The people working on the farms along the way seemed to be speaking Arabic, even though everyone in the city itself appeared to be Turkish. I have not seen any information about the ethnic composition of the city in 1939, but the process of Turkification seems far advanced. Meanwhile, I am unware of which, if any, of the Christian Patriarchates of Antioch are actually resident in the city, or what kind of Christian population survives at all. The large Syriac Othrodox population of Turkey had mainly been centered to the east, around Edessa (Urfa) and Diyarbakir; but beginning in World War I, with attacks on them as well as on Armenians and Assyrians, most such Christians have fled the area.

A recent controversy of note in Turkey has been over the Syriac Orthodox Mor Gabriel Monastery, where a government land resurvey and hostile neighboring Muslim villagers have threatened the monastery, founded in 397 AD, with the loss of half of its land. Since local Christians have been leaving the area for decades, few remain, and the monastery itself is down to three monks and twleve nuns [cf. The Wall Street Journal, March 7-8, 2009, p.A8]. The Turkish government is caught between the attraction of tourism and even Christian return, with economic benefits, and the Islamists, who would just as soon drive all non-Muslims out of the area, if not out of Turkey altogether, regardless of the consequences. As a land dispute, the matter has ended up in the Turkish courts, which have shown some reluctance to get drawn in. With observers and diplomats from the EU and international Christian and human rights organizations present, the courts are at least aware that they operate in a spotlight, with sensitive politcal issues on the line.

A new development in Syriac Orthodox doctrine, the introduction of the term "Miaphysite," is addressed under the treatment of the Coptic Church.

The Maronites began with a proposal in the Christological controversies of the early Church. This was Monotheletism, the idea that Jesus had two natures, thus conforming to Orthodoxy, but only one Will, intended as a concession to Monophysitism. Although the matter is poorly attested, this was supposed to have been the proposal of the monk Maron. The Emperor Heraclius briefly got this accepted as Orthodox, but it was eventually rejected.

Syriac Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch

Ignatius Michael III Jarweh

1782–1800

vacant, 1800–1802

Ignatius Michael IV Daher

1802–1810

Ignatius Simon II Zora

1811–1818

vacant, 1818–1820

Ignatius Peter VII Jarweh

1820–1851

vacant, 1851–1853

Ignatius Antony I Samhiri

1853–1864

vacant, 1864–1866

Ignatius Philip I Arqous

1866–1874

Ignatius George V Chelhot

1874–1891

vacant, 1891–1893

Ignatius Behnam II Benni

1893–1897

Ignatius Ephrem II Rahmani

1898–1929

Ignatius Gabriel I Tappouni

1929–1968

Ignatius Anthony II Hayek

1968–1998

Ignatius Moses I Daoud

1998–2001

Ignatius Peter VIII Abdel-Ahad

2001–2008

Ignatius Joseph III Younan

2009–present

This put the Maronites in conflict with the Imperial Church, but they were already on the outs with the majority Monophysities of Syria. By the end of the 5th century, long before Heraclius, Maronites were already moving for refuge to Mount Lebanon, also finding converts among the locals.

The early history of the Maronite Patriarchate is very obscure, with few dates and even uncertainty about the existence or identity of many Patriarchs. Indeed, it is not clear just when the notion would have arisen that the Maronite primate was supposed to be a Patriarch (of the Apostolic See of Antioch) at all.

Names that do not occur on all lists are followed by question marks, and the numbering of subsequent Maronite Patriarchs depends on which individuals are accepted as historical. It even looks like the original Maron, in the 5th century, is sometimes confused with the later Maron, after the Arab conquest in the 7th century, who became the first Patriarch -- or perhaps it is not a confusion. The first secure date and uncontroversial list of Patriarchs appears to begin in 1110, which significantly is soon after the arrival of the Crusaders in 1098. By then, the Lebanese had largely ceased speaking Aramaic and, with Muslim neighbors, adopted Arabic. However, the Church sometimes still wrote Arabic in the Western Syriac alphabet, a style call
Karshûnî.

With the Armenians of Lesser Armenia, the Maronites may have been the local Christians with the best relationship with the Crusaders. During the life of Outremer and after, between 1182 and 1584 the Maronites negotiated full doctrinal union with the Roman Catholic Church, while the Patriarch retained autocephalous control of his Church. The present Patriarch, Nasrallah Sfeir, is the third one to also be a Cardinal of the Catholic Church. Thus, the last Christological heresy, still surviving institutionally, is thus long gone doctrinally.

For a brief moment, the Shihâbî Amîrs of Lebanon, 1697-1842, led the Maronites to Lebanese autonomy under the Ottoman Empire and almost achieved independence. Although France was sympathetic with this, British foreign policy, which aimed to maintain Turkey as a buffer against Russia, turned against it. Maronite Christians still form the major Christian community of the Republic of Lebanon, and the Lebanese Maronite Patriarch still regards himself as the proper Patriarch of Antioch. While the Modern Republic of Lebanon was created by France in such a way as to ensure control by the Maronites, the greater birth rate of Muslims upset the balance and the Lebanese Civil War of the 1970's destroyed the agreement between the confessional communities that had previously preserved the peace and allowed the country to prosper. The community with the greatest birth rate, and the least prosperity, the Shiites, are now the most radicalized, still the least prosperous, and the most inclined to harbor terrorists and provoke Israel. In line with the ideology of Irân, and supplied with weapons from Irân through Syria, their focus is Apocalyptic, on the Jihâd rather than on triffles like economic development.

As is often noted, Jerusalem is sacred to three religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This distinguishes it from the other Christian Patriarchates -- Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria -- which are of no particular significance to Judaism or Islam. Jerusalem could be considered the oldest Christian Patriarchate. Christianity certainly began there and the first leaders of the religion lived there. However, the ideas of a Church, of a hierarchy, of priests, and of a Patriarchate are all later developments. And then the Christian community, such as it was, disappeared in the chaos of the Jewish War. The growing root of Christianity was transferred elsewhere by leaders like St. Paul. The destruction of the Temple and the later annihilation of the whole city after the revolt in 135 probably helped destroy the base of the community who would have kept Christianity as a sect of Judaism. Instead, it grew into a heresy of Judaism and then a separate religion, spreading among Gentiles freed by Paul from the strictures of Jewish Law. Meanwhile, Jerusalem was rebuilt as a Roman city, Aelia Capitolina -- Jews were prohibited from entering except once a year to visit the Wailing Wall, believed to be the only remaining part of Solomon's Temple.

The numbers on the map of Jerusalem refer to the "Stations of the Cross," the route that Jesus took from his condemnation to the Crucifixion and burial. These are (1) the place of his condemnation by Pilate, (2) where he receives the Cross, (3) where he fell the first time, (4) where he met his mother, (5) where Simon of Cyrene took the Cross, (6) where Veronica wiped his face, (7) where he fell the second time, (8) where he met the women of Jerusalem, and (9) where he fell the third time. The 7th Station is actually the first one in the Christian rather than the Moslem Quarter of the City. The Stations after the 9th are all within the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. (10) Where Jesus was stripped of his clothes, (11) where he was nailed to the Cross, (12) where he died on the Cross, (13) where he was taken down, and (14) where he was laid in the tomb. Where the condemnation is thought to have taken place may well be in error, and many of the events along the way are not in the Gospels but a matter of local tradition. We see them all played out in Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ.

Greek Catholic, the Catholic Counter- Church to the Orthodox one. It is unclear to me whether this is actually identical to the Greek Catholic Patriarch of Antioch, who is also styled the Patriarch of Jerusalem, or something else.

Neither of these latter two Patriarchates, however, has an actual Patriarch. It would be odd if the Ethiopians did, when the Primate of Ethiopia himself did not become a Patriarch until 1959 -- previously the Ethiopian Church was subordinate to the Coptic Patriarch. Either way, the Ethiopian presence in Jerusalem seems extraordinary. There is even a small Ethiopian monastary on the roof of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

The parts of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre are the province of different sects, as defined by the Status Quo decree issued by the Ottoman Sultân in 1852. Those involved are the Greeks, Catholics, Armenians, Copts, Ethiopians, and Syrians. The Syrians, i.e. the Syrian Orthodox, are the only ones not associated with a "Patriarchate" of Jerusalem -- their church in Jerusalem is St. Mark's. Disputes over jurisdiction in the Church led to one of the most extraordinary provisions: The keys to the Church are in the charge of a particular Muslim family.

The 4th century historian of the Church, Eusebius, gives a list of bishops of Jerusalem down to Hermo. There is no way of knowing what evidence, traditions, or documents this may have been based on. There is certainly no independent evidence for it, but no lack of skepticism now about the historicity or possibility of such a thing. Apostolic succession and a lineage of transmission were, again, later conceptions and aspirations. Fictitious lines of transmission are not unknown even in Buddhism.

As the Church achieved toleration and then privileged status in the Roman Empire, the system of recognized Patriarchates developed. Jerusalem was certain to come in for special attention. The Emperor Constantine initiated the identification of the sites of the Crucification and burial of Jesus, and the building of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (dedicated 335) over them. Constantine's mother, the eighty-year-old St. Helena, is supposed to have been involved in identifying the sites, on a pilgrimage in 325 or 326, and was also believed to have discovered the actual Cross of the Crucifixion. She was said to have returned to Italy with various relics, including the Titulus Crucis, the plaque nailed to the Cross that identified Jesus as the "King of the Jews." This still exists where Helena reportedly deposited it, in the Church of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme. Argument continues about its antiquity.

One of the most important inhabitants of Jerusalem, or actually of the nearby Bethlehem, in the following period was St. Jerome (Eusebius Hieronymus), who had been secretary to the Pope, St. Damasus, who charged him to make a Latin translation of the Bible. After Damasus' death in 384, Jerome retired to Palestine to do this. It is hard to tell how much of the Vulgate is Jerome's original translation and how much he worked over from previous ones, but he completed the job. For the Old Testament, having learned Hebrew, Jerome could do his work from the original text, not just relying on the Greek translation, the Septuagint. Jerome is still regarded as one of the Doctors (i.e. Teachers) of the Catholic Church.

The first great event in the Mediaeval troubles of Jerusalem was the taking of the city by the Sassanid Persians in 614. The True Cross was removed from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre by Shah Khusro II. When the Emperor Heraclius defeated the Persians and Khusro was assassinated in 628, the Cross was returned. After a display in Constantinople, it was restored to Jerusalem in 629. The story is that Heraclius wanted to carry the Cross himself, but found it too heavy. The Patriarch of Jerusalem, Zacharias, suggested that the Emperor lay aside his Imperial Crown and robes. When he did so, the Cross became light enough to carry.

This moment of triumph was doomed to be brief. In 636 a new and unexpected, almost unbelievable enemy appeared, the Arab army of Islam. Heraclius was defeated at the Battle of the Yarmuk and Jerusalem was occupied by the Caliph Omar. The consequences of this event echo down to the present day in undiminished force. Omar himself, however, was kind and magnanimus. When the Call to Prayer came as he was actually being shown the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Patriarch invited him to pray in the Church. Omar declined, saying that if he prayed there, "The Believers would come," and take over the Church as a site hallowed by the Caliph. So Omar went across the street to pray, where, predictably, the Mosque of Omar was subsequently built.

Latin Patriarchs of Jerusalem

Arnulf of Chocques

1099, 1112-1118

Dagobert of Pisa

1099-1102, 1102-1107

Ehremar

1102

Ghibbelin of Arles

1107-1112

Garmond of Picquigny

1119-1128

Stephen

1128-1130

William I of Malines

1130-1145

Fulk

1146-1157

Amalric

1157-1180

Heraclius

1180-1191

Jerusalem lost in 1187; seat of the Patriarch moved to Acre; Vacant, 1191-1194

Today other Islamic monuments, like the al-Aqsa Mosque, are sometimes confused with the Mosque of Omar. The most conspicuous Islamic structure is still the Dome of the Rock, on the center of the Temple Mount, which was built by the Omayyad Caliph 'Abd al-Malik (685-705). This was built over a rock from which, in a dream, the Prophet Muh.ammad is supposed to have ascended to heaven. This makes Jerusalem the third holiest city of Islam, after Mecca and Medina.

It would be many years before Christian forces would return to Jerusalem. The Macedonian Roman Emperors, after retaking Antioch (969), entered Palestine and came close, but were not able to secure anything permanent or assault the city. It remained just out of reach.

A new era arrived for Jerusalem with the Crusades. The Emperor Alexius Comnenus, with the Turks overrunning Anatolia, appealed for help from the West. Help arrived, with only marginal interest in the Turks, but bent on recovering Jerusalem itself, 663 years after the original Islamic Conquest. The City was taken, amid scenes of indiscriminate slaughter. After the diplomatic niceties that had developed in the Middle East, this was regarded as nearly as appalling as it has seemed more recently. The Crusaders, indeed, by comparison with contemporary Greeks or Arabs, were barbarians. In an era when Islamic terrorists blow up children with suicide bombs, however, judging the Crusaders too harshly seems a little anachronistic and disproportionate. Other objections, that the Crusades represent some kind of Western "imperialism," gloss over the question of what justified the original Islamic Conquest in the first place. Of course, nothing did. The Arabs had no moral or historical claims on the Levant, Iraq, Iran, or Egypt. Harsh judgments about the Crusaders 900 years ago, while winking at, or even supporting, Terrorists today, gives us a good example of moralistic relativism.

With the foundation of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, we get a new Patriarchate at Jerusalem. The Greek/Melkite Patriarch was regarded as a Schismatic by the Franks, and we get a new Latin/Catholic Patriarch in communion with Rome. Although the Latin Patriarch retreated with the declining fortunes of the Crusaders, to Acre and then Cyprus, and finally all the way to Rome after 1374, the idea was maintained, and a Latin Patriarch returned to Jerusalem in 1847.

After the Ayyubids, Mamluks, and Ottomans ruled Palestine and Jerusalem, the city's sleep of ages ended in 1918. General Allenby arrived with the British Army, driving the Turks before him. Allenby entered the city, as we see, on foot. A Christian power now secured the city for the first time since 1244. The British, however, although with a phlegmatic kind of pious interest in the city, were no Crusaders. Far from securing the Holy Places for Christendom, the British arrived burdened with promises to allow the creation of a Jewish National Home in Palestine. Conflicting promises and reassurances to the Arabs prepared the ground for one of the most bitter, durable, and dangerous conflicts of the 20th, and now the 21st, century. When Palestine was partitioned in 1948, the city of Jerusalem ended up itself divided, with the Old City annexed to Jordan, and most of the New City made the capital of an independent Israel. The city was reunited in 1967 and all of it annexed to Israel. This action has not been accepted by Palestinians, the United Nations, or even the United States -- which never recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in the first place, since the UN partition plan made it some kind of international city. Israeli governments, on the other hand, have vowed never to divide the city again. There is still little hope of a compromise or peaceful solution to all this, though it is obvious that at least some of the city (e.g. the Temple Mount) should be part of a dual sovereignty condominium. Such things have been done, though mainly between friendly powers. At the moment (2012), there seems less chance of a friendly rapprochement between Israel and the Palestinians than ever.

The list of Orthodox Patriarchs is from a combination of various sources on the internet and Eusebius' The History of the Church [Penguin, 1965]. Websites identity this lineage as the "Greek Orthodox" Patriarchs of Jerusalem. This is a little confusing, since today the "Greek Orthodox" Church may simply mean the national Church of Greece. But this national Church has only existed since Greek independence. Before then "Greek Orthodox" can only mean the Christian Church whose primary liturgical language was Greek, and for the entire Middle Ages that meant the Church of the Patriarch of Constantinople -- now commonly called the "Ecumenical" Patriarchate to distinguish him from the Greek national Church. The Patriarchate of Jerusalem, however, was never any kind of subsidiary of the Patriarch of Constantinople. What did happen, however, was the Schism of the Latin and the Greek Church with those of Syria and Egypt over the Fourth Ecumenical Council, which declared the Monophysite doctrine, that Jesus had one nature, heretical. This divided the Patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria into Monophysite ("Jacobite" and Coptic, respectively) and Imperial lines. The Imperial Church might be call the "Catholic" Church, as it was at the time, but this would now be confusing, since it has come to simply mean the Papal Latin Church of Rome -- after the Schism with the Greek Church in 1054. The term used for the Middle Eastern Imperial Churches has been "Melkite," i.e. "Royal" (Hebrew melekh and Arabic malik, "king," the related Aramaic or Syriac term would have been the more immediate source). My understanding, therefore, is that the "Greek Orthodox" Patriarchs of Jerusalem are actually the Melkite Patriarchs. I may be confused about this, but full accounts of the situation are rare. There is, as it happens, an independent Monophysite Church represented in Jerusalem, and that is the line of Armenian Patriarchs, beginning with Abraham (638-669). It may be revealing that this starts right after the Islamic Conquest, when Imperial authorities could no longer object. The Armenian Patriarch presided over an actual Armenian Quarter in the Old City of Jerusalem, thus distinguished from the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Quarters.

The geographical centrality of Jerusalem had two consequences. One was that it encouraged Dante to regard Purgatory as having an actual terrestrial location, at the precise antipode of Jerusalem. This would put it now in open ocean a good bit south of the island of Rapa (or Rapa Iti, "Small Rapa," in contrast to Rapa Nui, "Great Rapa," a.k.a. Easter Island) in French Polynesia. In Dante's day that would make the place practically inaccessible to human travel. Even today, not many people are going to find themselves out there. How seriously Dante took this cosmology as literal geography is a good question, but it would be centuries before he would be in much danger of being contradicted.

Dante places the "Earthly Paradise" of the Garden of Eden at the summit of Purgatory. In the Bible, Eden is said to be "in the East" [Genesis 2:8] where "a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers" -- the Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, and Euphrates [Genesis 2:10-14]. Thus, the "T" maps often show Eden at some indefinite point east of Jerusalem, i.e. above it on the "T" maps. As the sources of the Tigris and Euphrates are well known and adjacent, it has been argued by David Rohl that, if the Pishon is identified with the Uzun (Mardus, Rud-e-Safid) and the Gihon with the Aras (Araxes), the directions specify that Eden would be in the valley of Tabriz (the capital of the Il-Khâns and the Safavids) in Iranian Azerbaijanistan. Dante doesn't use any of these named rivers in the Purgatorio and so completely ignores the tradition of taking the Biblical clues as evidence of a familiar geographical location. One might think that he would postulate that Eden was moved after the Fall, but he affirms that Adam and Eve saw the same (Southern) sky over Eden that Dante and Virgil did.

The legend of a sacred and miraculous island in the Southern Ocean is also found in Buddhism. A mountain island of indefinite location thereabouts came to be regarded as , Pot.alaka (Fudaraku in Japanese), the home of the Boddhisattva Avalokiteshvara -- in Chinese, or Kannon in Japanese. It was an important part of the conception that the island be a mountain, since Avalokiteshvara is supposed to "look down" on the world and to hear all things. In the classic Chinese story, The Journey to the West, ("Record of the Western Journey"), Guanyin must intervene several times on behalf of the travelers, while the character Monkey repairs to Potalaka more than once in connection with this. Belief in the reality of the place became so vivid that Japanese ascetics are known to have set themselves adrift in small boats from the southern coasts of Japan, in the hope that the transit (Fudaraku tokai, "crossing to Fudaraku"), even if it resulted in death at sea, would fascilitate rebirth in the land of Kannon. Whether Dante had himself ever received word of such a miraculous place, which contributed to his conception of Purgatory, we probably cannot know. In any case, Europe was in no position for anyone to act on such a belief, as could the Japanese ascetics.

A modern, secular version of Dante's descent into the Underworld would be Jules Verne's Journey to the Center of the Earth [1864] -- although his travelers, starting in Iceland, manage to emerge no further than Italy. Italy, indeed, would be where Dante's journey began, since that is where he lived, with a Roman tradition that an entrance to the Underworld was located at Avernus, a volcanic crater lake in Campania. Since Dante's Hell was conical in shape, centered under Jerusalem, its edges and entrances would be on a perimeter at some distance from Jerusalem, as in Italy. Dante's idea was that the funnel shape of Hell was the result of the impact of Satan being thrown down from Heaven after the Revolt of the Angels. Thus, Dante has Satan lodged at the bottom of Hell, which presumably was then roofed over to make it a prison. Dante sees Purgatory created by the material thrust up opposite the point that Hell is pushed down. In fantasy and legend, the idea of mysterious hidden islands in the South Pacific still has its appeal, not only, as we have seen, with Potalaka, but to "Skull Island" of the King Kong movies [1933, 1976, 2006].

The other consequence of Eratosthenes' calculation was that many simply did not believe that the world could be that large in relation to the known land mass. An estimate by Arab astronomers of a much smaller earth seemed more reasonable, and that encouraged Christopher Columbus to believe that he could reach the Indies by sailing West across the Atlantic. Since Eratosthenes had been right, Columbus might have died in mid-ocean -- if it weren't for the convenient accident that there were unknown continents in the way. Indeed, sailing West, it is impossible to miss them. The "Indies" turned out to be the West Indies. Thus, as often happens, surprising truths emerge from embarrassing, or even suicidal, errors.

Purgatory is a unique conception of the Latin Roman Catholic Church. It was never accepted by the Orthodox Churches, subsequently was rejected by the Protestants, and is now not believed even by many Catholics. However, morally it is a superior conception.

The problem was the Christian doctrine that sincere repentance by a sinner and the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross mean that all sins are forgiven and washed clean. The proper moral retribution of "eternal punishment" is therefore voided and erased. This is not the manner of secular justice, where repentance and contrition may somewhat mitigate the sentence for a crime, especially in a plea bargain with a confession of guilt, but it does not erase the requirement for penal retribution and punishment. The public is generally offended when condemned murderers begin to assert that they are forgiven and clean of sin because they have been redeemed by Christ. The impression is that they may have thereby become unrepentant and remain unmoved by the suffering of their victims. A version of this in popular culture is the fate of Darth Vader (Anakin Skywalker) in the Star Wars movies. We see that Vader has personally murdered many individuals and has ordered acts of mass murder, especially the destruction of the entire planet of Alderaan, with its whole population. Nevertheless, in Return of the Jedi [1983], Vader changes his mind, repents of his deeds, and so, after death, immediately becomes a transfigured being of light, along with the heroes Obi-wan Kenobi (whom Vader has killed) and Yoda. This is morally offensive. And it doesn't even come with the explanation that Christ Died for Our Sins and took the proper punishment onto himself.

Catholic doctrine thus tries to reconcile the requirements both of salvation and of retribution. If one has committed a wrong, such as a murder, that very well could mean one deserves damnation for eternity, then Christian doctrine offers the hope that genuine repentance can lead to redemption. Eternity is a long time, and other religious traditions with Hells, like Buddhism, do not actually see eternal punishment as necessary (although this is sometimes the belief). Christianity condemns for eternity the unrepentant, but allows forgiveness for the others. This seems appropriate. However, even sincere repentance morally looks insufficient to simply void the justice of retribution. Catholicism, on the one hand, says that it does, since the doctrine is that the sin is eradicated, but, on the other hand, says that it doesn't, with the principle that the "stain of sin" can only be erased with the proper penance and "temporal [i.e. temporary or limited] punishment" [Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday, 1995, pp. 407, 411; translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, United States Catholic Conference, Inc., Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1994]. This applies even before death, in the ritual and procedures and Confession and Penance. Protestants, however, object that Jesus made no distinction between "eternal" and "temporal" punishment, and that the divine forgiveness of sin must have the same effect for all sin, whether that means now or in the hereafter. What is worse, Catholicism allows that even "temporal punishment" can be attenuated or voided by the Intercession of Saints or Indulgences granted by the Church. Protestants see no reason why Saints or the Church should be doing something that Jesus already had done in the first place.

The Catholic Church thus is caught by the logic of Christian doctrine and may be engaging in no less than a bit of sophistry when it comes to both penance and Purgatory. But its doctrine also neatly addresses both the hope of salvation and the requirements of justice. Something is still owing after repentance and forgiveness. Darth Vader eventually will be able to join Obi-wan and Yoda, but not until after working off his penance.

Catholic doctrine similarly tries to reconcile two other comparable issues, faith and works. Thus while Martin Luther is famous for the docrine of Salvation by Faith alone, Catholicism actually accepted this also. Even repentance in articulo mortis, at the moment of death, wins salvation. The difference then is, again, the role of Purgatory; for those who are only saved in articulo mortis have an extra delay in getting into heaven. Dante puts them in "Ante-Purgatory," where they must wait before passing through St. Peter's Gate and entering Purgatory proper. What good works and the Sacraments of the Church then accomplish is to speed up the process. If this is merely to give the Church something to do as a parasitic gatekeeper, it is not a worthy conception. However, if what it does is introduce a moral dimension in the process, which might otherwise be lost, it is important. Also, the concept of the transfer of merit, as from the Saints, is not unique to Catholicism. It is common in Buddhism also and serves the same purpose, to mitigate or cancel the punishment that morally is due to the sinner.

The whole issue involves the independence of the categories of moral and religious value. While it may be the case in Zoroastrianism that the good are those who are saved and the wicked are those who are damned, that is not the case in religions like Christianity, Islam, or Pure Land Buddhism. There, the good, like Dante's "virtuous pagans," may still find themselves cut off from salvation, while the wicked can find redemption through faith. Behind it all is the oldest expectation of most ancient religion, as in Greek mythology, that all the dead lead a miserable existence in the Underworld -- but also the newest expectation of modern life that death is simply the extinction of the self and eternal oblivion. Thus, both the just and the unjust either descend to Hades or simply and equally become nothing. The promise of religion, then, ever since the Eleusinian Mysteries, is that something more and better awaits. It is then, on the one hand, comforting that religion offers the promise of salvation, even while, on the other hand, there is the implicit view that those who do not avail themselves of the means of salvation will, in the words of Sophocles, "suffer an evil lot" -- through no fault of their own. This is morally disturbing in its own right, although, to be sure, the atheist would have no grounds for complaint, having expected no better anyway. Nevertheless, the problem of reconciling salvation and morality seems to be another case of an antinomy of transcendence -- that, as Kant holds, attempts to conceptualize transcendent existence result in contradictions and paradoxes.

A moral equivalent to Purgatory may be identified in Pure Land Buddhism. Birth in the Pure Land is gained as a matter of faith in the Vow of the Buddha Amitâbha, (Amida, Jp.). Even the most sinful can erase kalpas worth of evils by acts of faith and devotion. Thus, are they then free and clear of their sins? No, because there is a hierarchy of birth in the Pure Land, nine grades, which depend on one's merit -- i.e. on one's moral desserts. At the highest grades of birth, the dead are greeted and escorted to the Pure Land by Amitâbha himself, attended by a great host of Bodhisattvas, monks, and deities, including the Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara (Kannon, Jp.), who bears a lotus upon which the deceased will be reborn. Enclosed in the lotus, the dead at the higher grades of rebirth are released in short order. However, at the lowest levels of rebirth, one is greeted at death by no more than the lotus itself, whose opening in the Pure Land will be delayed. At the very lowest grade, the lotus will not open for 15 kalpas. Since this will mean millions of years, one is in effect condemned to solitary confinement for a period that could be expected, with any kind of psychological realism, to drive people insane. It is very hard not to see that as punishment for sin, although, to be sure, one is not otherwise troubled with the sorts of tortures that characterize Buddhist hells. No one in the Pure Land experiences even thirst or hunger. Thus, as with Purgatory, we have a doctrine of the forgiveness of sin which nevertheless treats very differently those with more merit and less sin from those with less merit and more sin.

One Catholic explanation for the need for penance is rectification, by which the wrongs done through sinful action are, as much as possible, made right through reparation and restitution. However, reparation and restitution are not punishment. They are debts, and they tend to function like debts incurred in more innocent fashion. Thus, the victims of crime have recourse to civil law to obtain satisfaction for their material losses. A civil judgment may include punitive damages, but then this is indeed clearly over and above compensation for actual losses.

We are thus still left with the awkward question. What is it that still needs to be expiated by penance when sin is forgiven and restitution made? I don't think there is a good answer to this in Catholic, let alone Christian, doctrine. However, there is an answer from older religious practice and principles. What remains after forgiveness is pollution, something of which we might have been immediately sensible at the mention of the "stain of sin." A "stain," whether in religion or in ordinary life, marks pollution. This may be related to moral issues, but it is not the same thing. Heracles was required to perform his Labors in penance, after killing his wife and children, even though, having been driving mad by Hera, he was not morally responsible for his actions. The pollution was the same. And, explicitly and self-consciously or not, this is what we see in the Catholic treatment of penance and Purgatory. Also, since pollution is not moral retribution and is now in a purely religious category, it may be expiated by purely religious, i.e. ritual, means. The Catholic who says a "Hail Mary" a number of times after absolution in the Confessional is neither making reparation nor, strictly speaking, being punished. This is a ritual act for ritual purposes. Similarly, a transfer of Merit from the Saints, or from the Buddha Amitâbha, addresses a ritual more than a moral requirement.

A role for pollution in these considerations produces exactly the kind of attenuated sanction that is required for the Catholic conception of "temporal punishment." That it is related to moral retribution is evident in the Church's use of the term "punishment"; but it avoids the incoherence of this usage, as identified by Protestants, in that it is actually independent of moral sanction. Since Catholic doctrine really contains no theory of pollution, any more than Protestantism, it is doomed to incoherence or sophistry; yet it still remains morally more satisfying in that penance is still necessary for actions that initially were morally wrongful.

The Armenian Church developed largely outside of Roman authority. It also split with Orthodoxy over Chalcedon. Thus, it is almost like a separate religious tradition (comparable to Ethiopia and the Church of the East). While traditionally Armenia converted to Chistianity before Rome, in 301, there is now some question about this, discussed elsewhere. The conversion may have before more like in 314, though still in the days of St. Gregory I the Enlightener (d.325). While the Arab Conquest left the Patriarchate in place, the Turkish Conquest of 1064 was something else. People were already fleeing to relative safety in Cilicia. The Patriarch relocated there in 1062. The collapse of Roman power at Manzikert in 1071 meant that even more Armenians fled to Cilicia, where soon the Kingdom of Lesser Armenia became established. With the fall of the Kingdom to the Mamlûks in 1375, the Patriarch continued to represent the Armenian community. But with the loss of political authority, and the disrupted nature of the area, in 1441 a new Patriarchate was established back in Armenia proper, at Etchmiadzin. This was not a relocation but resulted in two Patriarchates, with the original line continuing, down to the present, as the Patriarchs of the Great House of Cilicia. This curious situation is rather like what happened in the Church of the East. The Cilician line eventually was itself relocated. In 1921, as a Greek invasion and an Armenian revolt were being crushed by Kemal Atatürk, attacks on Armenians in Cilicia, who previously has been protected by a French occupation, began. Most of the Armenians, including the Patriarch, fled to French controlled Lebanon. The Patriarchate was formally established there, at Antelias, in 1930. It thus continues down to the present, while now recognizing the primacy of the Patriarchate in Armenia.

A Schism in 1737, as even more like in the Church of the East again, led to the formation of a Catholic Counter Church for the Great House of Cilicia. This continues to today, seated, like its Orthodox counterpart, in Lebanon.

Armenia itself, after so many centuries under Islam, finally came under the rule of a Christian power, Russia, which annexed the area around Yerevan in 1828 and around Kars in 1878. With the collapse of Tsarist Russia and an attempt to establish an Armenian Republic in 1920, the Turks managed to retake both Kars and everything south of the Aras River near Yerevan. The annexation of what remained of Armenia to the Soviet Union then brought on a kind of equivalent of the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople, since the Soviet regime had its own reasons for hostility to Christianity. This ended with the Fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the creation of a new Republic of Armenia. Like a lot of the rest of the former Soviet Union, Armenia has not done that well from independence. Many people have left, looking for work. The Patriarch, however, as the most visible continuation of the deep past of Armenian history and tradition, now can travel the world to visit and reunite disparate communities of Armenian immigrants. Although Soviet hostility had kept the Armenian and Cilician Patriarchs estranged, this was quickly made good. In 1995, a Patriarch of Cilicia, Karekin II, became Patriarch of Armenia, as Karekin I.

Patriarchs of the East

The Church of the East was originally the Christian Church of Persia. Since Persia was occasionally at war with Rome, resident Christians would have been under some pressure to show that they were not acting as agents of Rome. Whether this was the reason or not, the opportunity to distinguish the Persian Church from the Roman arrived in 431 AD, when the Third Ecumenical Council, of Ephesus, condemned the teachings of the Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople. The Church of the East had not participated in the Council, and word of it took a while to reach Ctesiphon. Then, however, the Church refused to anathematize Nestorius and did not accept the decision of the Council. Since then, the Church of the East has been characterized as the "Nestorian" Church by Greek and Latin authors, and those following in their tradition. It remains a matter of dispute whether the Christology of the Church of the East is or ever was Nestorian or not, and "Nestorian" may or may not be a characterization used or accepted by Church members. Nevertheless, the Church does use Nestorius's formula for Mary as the "Mother of Christ," rather than the Orthodox and Catholic formula of Mary as the "Mother of God," , hê Theodókos. As long as that formula is used, implicitly still rejecting the Third Council, doctrinal unification will have a way to go.

The Patriarchs have often been called the Patriarchs of "Babylon," but the first seat of the Patriarchate was at the Sassanid capital of Ctesiphon, at a time when Babylon had long been abandoned -- a condition already observed by the Emperor Trajan. Ctesiphon, however, was on the Tigris River very nearly opposite Babylon on the Euphrates, and also not far up the Tigris from the old Seleucid capital of Seleucia. Not much further up the Tigris is where the Abbasid capital of Baghdad would be built, and in the 9th century the Patriarchate moved there.

There it would stay until the arrival of the Mongols in the 13th century. Many Mongols, including the wife of the conqueror of Baghdad and the first of the Ilkhâns, Hülägü, were Nestorians. Briefly, it looked like the Church of the East might become the state religion of a quarter of the pan-Eurasian Mongol Empire. The Patriarchate moved to Maragha in Azerbaijanistan, not far from Tabrîz, the capital of the Mongols. One Patriarch, Mar Yab-Alaha (or Yoalaha) III, was a Mongol himself. In 1295, however, the Ilkhâns converted to Islâm, and the chance for dominant status had passed.

Before long the Patriarchate had moved back down out of the mountains to Mosul, now the principal city of northern Iraq. There it would stay, nearby at Alqosh (or Alqush), for many centuries. Next would come schism. Patriarch Mar Shimun IV Bassidi ruled (c.1450) that his office would only pass to members of his own family -- in practical terms to a nephew, since the Patriarch was celibate. This formalized nepotism was not accepted by many in the Church, and later a rival Patriarch came to be elected in 1551, Yohanan (or Hanna) Sulaqa (or Soulaqa). At the suggestion of Franciscan missionaries, Sulaqa made his way to Rome, where he was ordained in 1553 as a Catholic Patriarch. Various terms were used by and for the people of this Church. In 1445 Pope Eugenius IV had accepted "Chaldean," and in time this became the offical name of the Catholic version of the Church of the East.

Thus, the Chaldean Church was not made up out of whole cloth, like typical Catholic counter-Churches, but was more like the Maronite Church in Lebanon, where an existing Orthodox Church entered into communion with Rome. But the whole Church of the East had not done that, so right down to the present Catholic and "Nestorian" Churches have both existed. But the history has been nowhere near that simple.

Yohanan Sulaqa settled at Diyarbakir, today in Turkey. His successors moved around a bit between there and Urmia in western Iran, but settled at Qochanis (or Qotshani, Kochanes) near Hakâri (Hakkari), south of Lake Van, today in Turkey. The 8th Patriarch renounced Catholicism and reinstated the Eastern theology. This line continues to the present as the Assyrian Church of the East.

Meanwhile, two Patriarchs at Alqosh had accepted Catholicism, but their successor didn't. Thus, for a while, both Patriarchs had been Catholic; and then later both Patriarchs were not. When it turned out that neither was Catholic, a Catholic Patriarchate (a true counter-Church) was installed at Diyarbakir again. Then the hereditary line at Alqosh died out in 1804. Soon, a new Patriarch, now at Mosul, accepted Catholicism and continued the Catholic succession. Now at Baghdad, this continues as the Chaldean Church. Thus, the curious result of the Schism was that the Catholic line became Nestorian and the Nestorian line became Catholic.

As all this was going on, Nestorian missionaries had spread across Asia. They had arrived in T'ang China in 635. Although there never was a Christian Mongol state, the Syriac alphabet carried by the missionaries ended up used to write, for the first time, the Mongol language, and also Uigur and Manchu. Until the last days of the Chinese Empire, Chinese coins displayed the name of their mint in the Syriac characters of Manchurian. As the See of St. Thomas, the Patriarchs of the East were also the primates of the oldest Christian Church in India, where St. Thomas is supposed to have eventually travelled.

Like the Armenians, Chaldean and Assyrian Christians, together with Syrian Orthodox Christians, were massacred and driven out of the mountains by the Turks and Kurds in World War I -- although there had previously been close relations, even intermarriage and conversions, with local Kurds. After Russian troups occupied western Iran, there were also reprisals against Christians there. Many Christians thus fled from Turkey and Iran into the new British Mandate of Iraq, where the Assyrian Patriarch then joined the Chaldean in Mosul. The British were pleased to have local Christian allies, and the community briefly attracted a great deal of attention -- along the lines of "our friends in Iraq." But the British used the local Christians for their own purposes and completely forgot them once it suited their purpose to grant Iraqi independence in 1932. This left the Christians in the lurch, and there were some massacres again in 1933. Many have subsequently immigrated to Europe and the United States. The Assyrian Patriarchate itself is in exile in the United States.

While many people find the history of the Church of the East, and its use of Aramaic (or Syriac), the language of Jesus, fascinating, a nationalistic movement among Assyrians has tended to be less interested in the Church, or even hostile. In its most extreme form, some Assyrian nationalists reject Christianity altogether and suggest that the gods of ancient Assyria, or at least the principal god, Ashur, should be revived. At a time when Middle Eastern Christians are often victims of attacks from radical Islâm, this proposal invites a great deal of trouble, since Muslims are under no obligation to tolerate polytheism or idolatry -- and governments administering Islâmic Law are little inclined to do so. The worship of Ashur (although presumably it would now be monotheistic), would not be Assyrian religion in the ancient sense without images of the god. At the same time, both Christian Assyrians and Chaldeans sometimes have objections to parts of the Old Testament, since both Assyrians and Babylonians are often portrayed negatively there -- the Book of Nahum, which prophecies (or celebrates) the fall of Nineveh, is particularly offensive. Others argue that Christianity actually derives from ancient Assyrian religion, and not from Judaism at all. Both these tendencies seem to involve an anti-Semitic aspect -- perhaps not surprising in the climate of the Arab world -- and are awkward features, not only in a Catholic Church like the Chaldean, but even for the Assyrian Church, where moves towards ecumenicism have involved downplaying doctrinal differences with Catholicism and other Orthodox Churches. It is hard to imagine either Patriarch seriously putting it to the Pope that Christ's role as Savior and Redeemer was based on the Kings of Assyria. At the same time, when Assyrian nationalist rhetoric makes is sound like the Jews are responsible for the problems of the community, the external observer may wonder what planet the nationalists have been living on.

While some form of Assyrian nationalism is widely popular in the Assyrian community, and even among some Chaldeans and Syrian Orthdox Christians, other Chaldeans and Syrian Orthodox find it offensive -- they may consider themselves Aramaeans instead, after the language they actually speak. The histories of these Churches has thus become entangled with political and ethnic issues that exist independently of the Christian histories of the communities. Other information on Assyrians and Chaldeans can be found in the Note on the Modern Assyrians. Since most Westerners are going to be interested and sympathetic with the modern Assyrians for their Christianity, the history of their Church, and their persecution under Islâm, they are bound to be uninterested, or put off, by celebrations of the ancient Assyrians, let alone by complaints about the Jews or the Bible. The nationalists, however, interpret such aversion as hostility to them -- an attitude that would seem to aim to cultivate Christian and Jewish, as well as Islamic, antipathy for the Aramaic speaking communities.

This list of the Patriarchs of the East is an attempt to combine the list that was at the "Chaldeans on Line" website (which has since disappeared) with the list of Patriarchs of the East, published by Qasha Yosip d-Bet Kelaita in 1924, as given and discussed by J.F. Coakley in his "The Patriarchal List of the Church of the East" [Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 89, "Studies on Continuity and Change in Syriac Christianity in Honour of Professor Han J.D. Drijvers," 1999]. Other information comes from The Modern Assyrians of the Middle East by John Joseph [Brill, Leiden, Boston, Köln, 2000] and from The Church of the East and the Church of England by J.F. Coakley [Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1992]. The different sets of dates are usually those given in the Chaldean and Assyrians lists, respectively. The absolute numbering of the Patriarchs is the Chaldean. This skips over some Patriarchs given in the Assyrian list and continues down to the Chaldean Patriarch at present. The alternative Assyrian numbering results in the present Patriarch Mar Dinkha IV being the "120th Catholicos-Patriarch of the Church of the East," as John Joseph says. Mar Dinkha IV, who has just died in 2015, is also counted as the 106th Patriarch.

In 2014 Islamic fascists, holding extensive territory in Syria in revolt against the Assad government, invaded Iraq and captured Mosul along with a broad swath of other, generally Sunni majority, territory. Their treatment of religious minories, including Christians and the curious, syncretistic community of the Yazidis, has been ferocious. In line with the intolerance of their ultimate Wahhabî origins, the radicals also destroyed the Mosque of Jonah in Mosul, probably because it is supposed to contain the tomb of Jonah. Although Jonah is regarded as a Prophet in Islam, Wahhabîs reject the veneration of tombs or any hint of a cult of saints in Islâm. We have seen similar behavior with the tombs of Muslim Saints in Mali, where no respect was even shown for the Islamic libraries associated with the tombs. The behavior of these people is thus savage and fanatical to an extent remarkable in the modern world.

With Christians driven out of their homes or villages in and around Mosul, the Christian exodus from Iraq, already steady, has increased. An article about all this by John Paul Kuriakuz, "Iraq's Chaldeans Still Exist -- for Now," has appeared in the The Wall Street Journal of August 25, 2014 [A13]. The curious thing about Mr. Kuriakuz's piece is the picture we get of his identity. Although a Chaldean, i.e. a member of the Catholic Chaldean Church, Kuriakuz nevertheless is an Assyrian nationalist. His formula is, "We are ethnic Assyrians from northern Iraq who belong to the Chaldean Rite of the Catholic Church." As noted, many Chaldeans, but not all, share this nationalist identity. And we get the nationalist affirmation that modern Assyrians are the same people as the ancient Assyrians:

Having heard of ancient Assyrian civilization at some point, many responded with: "They still exist?" Feeling a bit like a museum artifact, my answer at the time was a simple: "Yeah, we exist."

Although Mr. Kuriakuz mentions that he was the former executive director of the "Chaldean Assyrian Syriac Council of America," his article otherwise conspicuously does not mention the Syriac Orthodox or Syriac Catholic communities in Iraq, whose persecution by the Jihadists is at least as severe as that of Chaldeans and Assyrians. Although Aramaean identity may not be concentrated in the Syriac Churches (I have had occasion to see it even in Assyrians), I have found the most heated opposition to Assyrian nationalism there. So Mr. Kuriakuz, although from an organization including the Syriacs, may ignore them in his article -- with references as to "the future of Chaldeans and Assyrians" -- because he is not pleased with disagreements about Assyrian nationalism. Thus, even in the face of Islamic genocide, the ideological division of the Christian community is evident, based on nationalistic rather than religious principles, with this disturbing element of attachment to the ancient Assyrians, whose own ferocity was little less than that of the Jihadists.